Ken Steel wrote:
"XML uses tags to identify data. Those tags are in a given language.
XML cannot, therefore, be
used in multilingual environments."
Ken, to use XML in multilingual environments is feasable. If you use
X12, EDIFACT, IDoc or other EDI tags. This approach is kind of
"self-explanatory": for programmers familiar with EDI. The end user is
anyway provided by a friendly - language specific - user front end
(e.g. an order form). I cannot imagine any business person, keen to
look into plain electronic documents or even to edit such stuff. But I
can imagine that they press the [Apply] button in some Web form and
are happy that everything else is prepared by the IT people.
These "self-explanatory" tags might be impressive in presentations of
dot.coms to attract fresh money;-) but I can't believe that companies
processing mass data are interested to waste their money/bandwith.
Best regards,
Frank Dreisch
GEFEG mbH
UN/CEFACT Joint Syntax Working Group (JSWG):
http://www.gefeg.com/jswg
XML/EDI with GEFEG EDIFIX:
http://www.gefeg.com/xml/index.htm
Document SAP IDocs:
http://www.gefeg.com/fx40/sapidoc.htm
MIGs in HTML:
http://www.gefeg.com/mig/mightml.htm
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home page: http://www.gefeg.com
Tel: +49-30-6392-6065
Fax: +49-30-6719-3481
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Steel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: Once Again, To XML Or Not To XML
"Brunnock, Andy" wrote:
> I saw a
> demo where
> an Access database was reading a remote web-site's XML document
using a
> very small VB script and populating the database. Reasonably
impressive on
> its own but add to that the ability to pass that into a small PC
based
> accounting package and you have B2B (admittedly manually initiated
but with
> no retyping) for a very small business that anyone with a little
Access
> knowledge and a manual could achieve.
It should be noted that very small businesses, if they use computers
for their business systems at all, use packaged business software.
Very
few, if any of them, would be at all interested in having their
personnel
learning to program in XML or XSL.
So you may be impressed, but where is the practical usefulness?
> Even in its current state, the number
> of tools available for XML already far outstretch that of
traditional EDI.
XML does a different job to traditional EDI, so this comparison
is meaningless.
XML is a markup language used to identify data imbedded in a text
stream, whereas traditional EDI is an attempt to solve the
automated interoperation problem between dissimilar business
processes.
> Add to that the ability to include things like multi-lingual
environments to
> an XML document without altering the structure and meaning of the
> information (much like your multi-channels on a DVD) and you have
fantastic
> potential.
"You" also have a fantastic misconception. XML uses tags to identify
data. Those tags are in a given language. XML cannot, therefore, be
used in multilingual environments.
> We just need some guidelines, templates, standards, whatever you
want to
> call them that everyone follows to make the whole process flow
smoothly.
I suspect "we" also need to understand more precisely the problem that
is
to be solved.
--
Ken Steel
ICARIS Services
Brussels and Melbourne
Research results: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/research/icaris
[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/
=======================================================================
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/
