?

Log in

No account? Create an account

"XQuery will be worse, not better, than SQL."

« previous entry | next entry »
Aug. 5th, 2004 | 04:11 am
mood: awakeawake
music: Jose Alfredo Jimenez con Mariachi Vargas - Mexican Hat Dance

Finally someone explains how XML is crap using ideas I can understand. Interestingly, they shoot down SQL as well because it fails to implement the One True Relational Model.

This all sort of explains why my XML exposure has been like this: load up the XML file in a text editor or an IDE that runs slow as molasses (because it's working on a huge huge file of redundant text -- it's like running uncompiled code!), figure out an XSL transform to make it look like a set of MSAccess tables, and import them to Access. Now all the implicit things become explicit, and speedy, too. Ahh. Now we can ask the data what it means.

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {9}

Triple Entendre

"Best implemented as", yes. But -- should it be implemented at all?

from: triple_entendre
date: Aug. 6th, 2004 01:57 am (UTC)
Link

Except that XML is a good data transfer mechanism ONLY because it's easy for humans to read. (A trap I fell right into.)

My thoughts on this are incomplete.

Seems to me the advantages of XML are that you can validate it, but surely you could do that by having a schema for any arbitrary format, even a "binary" one.

Hmm, couldn't any binary data format be automatically translated into an XML file (which could then have a "proper" schema), as long as there was some repeated pattern (or you knew the format already)?

Taking it to the extreme,
Couldn't ANY sort of file be "decompiled" into XML?

Isn't XML therefore just a "pretty-printed" view of data?

Reply | Parent | Thread