Glen Cole writes:

>I read through a relatively quick intro to XML last night, and it
>seemed to make sense.  It's a bit dated, though; perhaps Mark can
>comment on whether that makes any difference.  I like the articles
>because (1) they're a quick read, and (2) they show easily-grasped
>examples.

   http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/98/41/index1a.html

   http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/98/45/index3a.html

These articles are in line with others I have read although the first
article said that an XML has to be well-formed and correct.  This is not
true.  You may create well-formed documents without a DTD (document type
declaration/definition).  Without a DTD, you could not check for
correctness.

>Incidentally, there's an interesting quote from an even older article
>at the same site:
>
>   According to Tim Bray, one of the editors of the XML specification
>   and member of the XML working group,
>
>      "XML is just a framework, the rest is all marketing."

Yes, he used to say something like "Some day, we'll look back and say 'XML
is just ASCII'"  Of course, that statement leads to your fear:

>The part that bothers me a bit about XML is that it's English-centric.

Since ASCII started as an English standard, I believe he changed his tune.
I often thought about that about programming languages too.  Does a German
programmer just accept the terms PRINT, DISPLAY, WRITE, System.out, etc.?
However, XML does support Unicode and I18N (Internationalization) was
designed in right from the start.  I think you see a lot of English because
of the current developers (Microsoft, IBM, Sun, Oracle, etc.)

>The whole idea (as I understand it) behind XML, though, is that the
>*user* creates the tags and attributes because they have meaning for
>said user!

Actually, the whole idea behind XML is to separate content from
presentation.  Remember that HTML is an SGML application.  HTML was designed
to do one thing - display and link documents.  SGML has many other
applications.  Most of these applications have to do with exchanging data:
books for publication (the content); technical manuals for the automotive
and aerospace industries (the content); recipes (again the content).  Other
programs will take these SGML documents and format them for display or
printing.  Since XML is just SGML-Lite, it is designed to do the same tasks
with less complexity.  SGML allows one to create tags too.  In fact, some
English-speaking person did and called it HTML.  But I see the true power of
XML is that one is not locked into a single presentation strategy.  What if
you want to publish information to Excel? CD-ROM? Palm-Pilot's? Web-enabled
cell-phones?  Internet appliances?  B2B interfaces?  Keeping the content
separate makes responding to newer technologies somewhat easier.

>Or am I making a big deal out of nothing?

I don't think so.  My concern is that we are creating a 'Tower of Babel',
where everyone speaks in his or her own language and cannot understand any
other.  There is an XML specification called XSLT - eXtensible Stylesheet
Language Transformations.  This spec describes how to convert one XML
document to another.  It is a bit "unnatural" to the procedural coder
though.

OTOH, Gavin Scott writes:

>XML is the spawn of Satan.
>Open your eyes.  Do not be deceived.
>DON'T GO INTO THE LIGHT!
>STAY AWAY FROM THE LIGHT!
>
>G. "XML: Just Say No."

Well, I'm a good Catholic boy...I should have some holy-water around here
somewhere...Oh! There it is.  Out Damn Scott!  ;-)  If Gavin is speaking of
the marketing hype - I have to agree.  One must keep your eye on the ball
and have a clear reason to use any new technology.  Doing XML for the sake
of XML makes no sense.  Since I wrote an XML article for Interact over a
year ago, I have been watching what other companies have been doing with XML
and not just what they are saying about it.  Then I look at MPE/iX and
wonder how can we leverage the work that has been done and to continue the
smart strategy of interoperation.  The players are big and they demonstrate
their belief in XML on their web sites: www.ibm.com/xml (where SGML was
born), www.microsoft.com/xml, www.oracle.com/xml, xml.apache.org and
www.javasoft.com/xml to name a few.  I believe great companies like Allegro
will take advantage too.  (DBXML?  XML Parser for SPLash!?  Toolboxes that
can be run from any browser on the company network to monitor any system on
the network?  De/FragxML?)

Anyway, I submitted an abstract for this year's HP World to talk about
web-enabling legacy apps using XML.  I would love nothing more than to give
example after example of how those really bright e3000 developers are way
ahead of there time - as usual.  So feel free to contact me on the list or
off if you have any questions I may be able to answer.

Mark Wonsil
4M Enterprises, Inc.