Bill, you might get me to admit that XSLT is an inappropriate means to transform XML to a printed report or flat file. Howard or I would probably use COBOL for the final report generation.
But at the risk of beating dead horses, pray tell when is XML ever inappropriate for outward-facing B2B interoperability? Let's be even-handed about this: I can't even think of that many applications for which X12 or UN/EDIFACT syntax would be inappropriate, except perhaps for "real" binary data like JPEGs or PDFs. Excluding those BLOB - Binary Large Objects - cases (for which the X12 BDS or BIN, or better yet, the 102 - Associated Data Transaction Set, were designed), X12 syntax (or, for that matter, UN/EDIFACT) is perfectly competent at carrying anything from POs and Dispatch Advices all the way to oil drilling geologic data and toxicological reports. And anything X12 syntax can do, XML can do equally well - or better. The unsuitability of XML has been repeated so often and loudly (most recently by you and Andres of England), without rationale. If people believe what's repeated, I'm afraid that efforts like UBL and CICA will be ignored. We don't want that to happen. Do we? After all, even you would agree that - syntax aside - it's easier to understand what the XML element "StreetName" means when it's ensconced within "Address" within "Party" within "BuyerParty", even if you didn't have the schema. Try doing the same with the N3 segment without the standard or IG readily available. William J. Kammerer Novannet Columbus, OH 43221-3859 . USA +1 (614) 487-0320 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Chessman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 02 February, 2005 05:23 PM Subject: RE: [EDI-L] The Ubiquity of XML - again. Sounds like an XML *parsing* issue to me. 8-) Another example of when XML may be inappropriately used. Best regards, Bill Chessman Inovis(tm) P.S. WRT dead horses and beatings thereof, with this note, I put away my own bludgeon...though it's never out of reach. 8-) -----Original Message----- From: Parks, Howard (E) Ext. 6150 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 2:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [EDI-L] The Ubiquity of XML - again. Isn't the whole point of putting it in XML so that nobody has to know Gentran to figure this out? The problem he is having is padding the product description so it looks nice. He has to fool XSL in order to do this. Very amusing. Maybe if he wrote the report in COBOL ... Howard Parks 1 Peter 4:10 -----Original Message----- From: William J. Kammerer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 2:57 PM To: EDI-L Mailing List Subject: [EDI-L] The Ubiquity of XML - again. See below. People actually do use XML for "incoming customer Purchase Orders." This was seen on the xsl-list. I have no idea whether the XML PO was based on an open standard like UBL, but that's not the important point I wish to make. Everyone reading the note on xsl-list is probably familiar with XML syntax and XSLT stylesheets - whether they are mathematicians, teachers, agronomists, chemists, petroleum engineers, programmers, web designers, or whatever. There's safety in numbers. Wouldn't that be a hoot if a particle physicist helped this guy out? That wouldn't be such a stretch to imagine. But how many particle physicists know Gentran? . Please use the following Message Identifiers as your subject prefix: <SALES>, <JOBS>, <LIST>, <TECH>, <MISC>, <EVENT>, <OFF-TOPIC> Access the list online at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EDI-L/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
