A Hilton wrote:
>
> For my clients and their
> situations, XML transfered direct thru the Internet would be the most cost
> effective solution. It's simply more of a direct link into their business
> processing, data storage, and client applications than is X12/EDIFACT
> formatting.
It would be interesting to have a bit more reasoning behind that assertion.
My experience is exactly the opposite. Unless applications are completely
reprogrammed to use XML input (which appears to be roughly 3-4 times
more expensive than using conventional syntaxes), XML simply introduces
another level of complexity and cost into the equation.
Please explain why I am getting the "wrong" answer.
--
Ken Steel
ICARIS Services
Brussels and Melbourne
Research results: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/research/icaris
Commercial report: http://desire.riv.be
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
