Ken Steel wrote:
>
> "Brunnock, Andy" wrote:
>
> > 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.
Wrong.
XML is a markup meta-language, that is a language to define
document structure. If we these documents are input or output
for an application, then the XML DTD are the interface definition.
Defining interface is part of the solution when one wants to
achieve automated interoperation between applications. The nice
thing about XML is that quality source code to parse, validate
and transform it is available for free. Also, that new software
support UNICODE and that's a requirement when exchanging data over
the Internet.
Actually, XML - as a meta-language - provides a lot more feature
than EDIFACT or X12.
What's missing to use XML instead of X12 (for instance) is a large
set of standard message definitions and building blocks like the
one accumulated by EDI standard bodies.
But do we really need them?
> I suspect "we" also need to understand more precisely the problem
> that is to be solved.
Indeed :-)
Laurent Szyster
___
Consultant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
WISE s.c. <http://www.wise-insurance.com>
=======================================================================
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/
