Martin A. Morrison made a surprising claim, talking about XML, when
he told us all:
> Except for the easier transport possibilities, it's just very restrictive
> HTML that ends up replicating traditional EDI (Using more resources in the
> process).
I see no easier transport possibilities. EDI and XML go just the same
over FTP, SFTP, HTTP get or push. The IETF EDI/MIME specifications handle
all the flavours you could want and more for attaching EDI to email with
signatures, non-repudiation and so on and have just been revised to handle
XML as a specific payload type. If anything, since the VAN operators are
well used to handling EDI in bulk, I would normally expect the argument to
be put the other way round by most EDI users: that XML is slightly more
difficult, in that it requires them to do something different. XML is,
of course, significantly more expensive, message for message over the
same transport mechanism than EDI; whether you are paying by the kilo-
character, by connect time, or by bandwidth charges, XML's great verbosity
will cost you at least 10 times more than the same EDI message.
Jonathan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Allen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Voice: 01404-823670
Barum Computer Consultants | | Fax: 01404-823671
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================================
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
