At 10:37 AM -0600 2/25/01, Cal Evans wrote:
>Glorious Sunday morning greetings to you Jan,
>
>No, XML is a format for 2 different applications, usually 2 totally separate
>applications, to be able to exchange data. It is not an appropriate choice
>for storing large amounts of data that will have to be queried. Nor is it an
>appropriate choice of language for talking to an RDBMS. Outside of the fact
>that it can be extremely verbose, we already have a perfectly good language
>for that, SQL. SQL is a language for committing data to a storage mechanism
>and retrieving the data back. It is superior to XML in those tasks.
Is anybody on this thread really rationally suggesting using XML
instead of SQL? I hope not. It would no longer be an SQL database. Of
course SQL is the language for committing data to the storage
mechanism. What the data consists of is another matter.
If some of my data is a paragraph of text of which some of the words
may be bold, others italics and so on, then I will want to make this
formatting information part of my data by using XML, RTF or some
other tagged structure.
If anyone is suggesting that I shouldn't ever do this, but only use
raw data, then they are nuts.
On the other hand if its being argued that the formatting information
should be separated from the raw data because you may want to look at
it in both forms, I can buy that, but the formatting information is
still data, still stored in the database, maybe just in a separate
field if you like. If anyone is arguing that the formatting
information should be stored in some other database, they are also
nuts.
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
