Re: XML Attributes -- MIDRANGE-L

I agree, XML is another good thing but it isn't a cure all.  When we
implemented our EDI (about 12 vendors, and almost double that number of
distributors) we went to Tampa for QRS training.  The one thing I
brought back from that class was that all theses standards (X.12, XML
...) are not standard.  Each partner has a different set of requirements
for each of the document types.  Some abide by the functional
acknowledgement and others, even though they require you to send it,
ignore it as if they never got it.  

X.12 would work well, and not need replacing, if folks would understand
that STANDARD MEANS STANDARD!

"Stone, Brad V (TC)" wrote:
> 
> >
> > You really have a bee in your bonnet about XML taking over
> > the EDI world ;-)
> >
> > Have a read of;
> >
> > [
> > http://www.xmls.com/resources/whitepapers/XMLSolutions_Peacefu
> l_Co-Existence
> .pdf ]
> 
> >It might calm your nerves better than valium ;-)
> 
> Actually I don't.  I just hate it when all people talk is theory.  Theory
> only works in your head.  Taking over the EDI world.  That's what all IT is
> about these days isn't it.  If you don't create the next Napster, you're a
> nobody.  So, instead of coming up with new ideas, you rebrand something
> existing as "Next Generation" and call it your own... sorry for the tangent.
> :)
> 
> I parused the document.  Found it interesting that one point they try to use
> to say XML is better than X.12 is you can "read" it with your eyes easier.
> (they don't come right out and say it that way, but why else would they
> point that out).
> 
> A lot of pretty pictures too.  Too bad real work isn't as easy as pictures.
> It wouldnt at all be to their advantage that you use XML and possibly
> purchase their product or services?
> 
> Example from me...
> 
> Data from AS/400-->replicate to NT-->display on web with cold fusion.
> easy right?  How about this...
> Take order on internet with Cold fusion-->replicate to AS/400-->bill order.
> 
> Easy right?  Pffffft...  Those --> contain about 10k lines of code and rules
> that haven't even emerged yet.  Ya, it's just "that easy".
> 
> Give me three reasons why XML is better than X.12?  I've asked this before.
> Never did get an answer.
> 
> Note:  I don't hate XML.  I'm not worried if I have to use it.  Here's what
> I hate:  Hype, buzzwords, IT management who haven't programmed a lick of
> code in their life and wouldn't know XML from Javascript but still think
> that one thing like XML or Java will solve all problems that exist because
> Joe Pundit in PC Week said so (who also hasn't programmed since punchcards).
> 
> I also don't like anything that is labeled "Next Generation" except Star
> Trek.
> 
> Don't show me theory and pretty pictures, show me fact and real world
> examples.  Let me hear from the programmers who had to implement this, not
> the project leaders who just hear "it's coming along ok".
> 
> So far, I haven't seen XML as the savior that Java was claimed to be.  :)
> What do you think, Leslie?  :)
> 
> Brad
> +---
> | This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
> | To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
> | To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
> | To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
> | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
> +---
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---