Re: What is the logic of storing XML in a Database?

On Mar 30, 6:33 am, "Daniel" <danielapar..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 11:58 am, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The standards are not currently in place to have ubiquitous exhange of
> binary data.

That is a fair point. However I don't buy the rest of it. Pushing binary data was a solved problem thirty years ago. There was no standard for arbitrarily structured binary data, and it turns out that arbitrarily structured data is really useful. It so happens that the first widely adopted standard for arbitrarily structured data was XML. That's the only idea of value that I have identified so far in XML. It's a very good one, but the large number of bad design choices (such as using a text representation,) the poor efficiency (which in part results from using a text representation) and the unnecessary complexity make it otherwise unattractive.

> There are not even sufficent standards in place to
> support ubiquitous access to all data in the popular DBMS products
> through industry standards such as ODBC, and that is small compared to
> the broader data interchange problem.
>
> In some sense, avoiding having to solve this problem is the entire
> reason for XML.

Sure. However, you asked me what would make XML better, and I gave you my opinion. My claim is not that XML has no value or that it serves no purpose. My claim is that it was really badly executed.

Marshall Received on Fri Mar 30 2007 - 16:59:14 CEST