The Church of XML
Have you ever felt that empty feeling inside, the feeling that something in your life is missing? If you have, then you probably don’t know about XML yet. XML is like all your dreams fulfilled; everything that seemed unrelated, coming together. See the light, taste the honey, enter the world of XML.
XML is great. XML can do everything. There’s something for everyone in XML. It can store structured data and it’s verifiable, it’s simplicity at its best. It’s the basis we all build on. Purity is our goal. Everything around XML should be XML, this way we can create our own XML world. With XML trees and XML flowers. With hot XML women dancing around. The world is so much better if it’s XML. HTML was nice because it looked a lot like XML, but it’s so much sexier now it’s XHTML. XML is clean, XML is it.
XML is the end of the best-tool-for-the-job debate. XML is the tool. XML is the ultimate answer. It’s the Pi of computer science. But as long as XML isn’t generally accepted we still have to deal with unenlightened data. Heathenism has always been hard to deal with. Many attempts have been made to disguise unenlightened data and silently get it into the XML world. The most succesful attempt so far is the base64/CDATA combo. It is often whispered that the CDATA backdoor only causes trouble, but it’s part of XML and XML is sacred. Thou shallt not doubt XML’s plan. XML has her reasons.
XML is female. Of course she is. XML is beautiful, XML is sexy, everybody wants a piece of her, and everyone can have a piece of her. But XML is not to own, XML is all about sharing. Perfection is also one of XML’s properties. Perfection on a higher level. It’s not about verboseness, it’s not about efficiency, it’s about openness, sharing and most of all: love. You don’t need condoms if you’ve got XML-DOMs. (Feel free to use that one.)
The true power of XML centers around the opening left angle bracket. It’s what gives us hope, it’s what tells us: hold on, there’s much more coming. But don’t underestimate the power of the closing right bracket either. It doesn’t mean it’s over, yet, it could be, it’s what adds that little spice you needed. The final closing right bracket also denotes the final frontier, the end of all. The world of XML is a world of certainty; if you know how it starts, you can also guess how it will end. Between the first opening left bracket and the last closing right bracket our whole world lives. It’s where objects are born and, eventually, where they will die.
I won’t touch a thing that’s not XML. I will do everything in XML. I’ll store my settings in XML; I’ll store my data in XML; I’ll transform my data with XML; I’ll query my data with XML; I’ll communicate using XML; I’ll validate using XML; I’ll read my news in XML; I’ll store my graphics in XML; I will only use office suites supporting XML; I’ll get notified of changes using XML; I’ll use programming languages that incorporate XML; and soon, I’ll create my user interfaces in XML. Do like me, and join the church of XML.
XML is my true love, and it can be yours. If you choose to embrace XML, as did I, we’ll all become one. You’ll not just join any church, you’ll join the church of XML. We don’t believe in boundaries within the XML world, the XML world knows no boundaries inside. The only thing we ask from you is to stay faithful to XML. If you’re having a hard time, hold on to XML. XML has a plan, everything happens for a reason.
XML is gaining momentum, every single day. The number of XML converts is growing and growing. We got people everywhere. In all major software companies, on all strategic places. Why else would, for example, Microsoft support XML? To strengthen their market position? I don’t think so. It’s all about sharing XML. XML is the answer, XML is the key, XML is all.
Why would there be thousands of books about XML? Not any of those books could just be about the angle brackets. They tell you that there’s so much more to it than that. If you already own such an XML book, you probably have already tasted some of the XML love. Good for you, give in to it.
So, do as many did before you. Join the church of XML.
The Wolf said,
Wrote on September 12, 2004 @ 1:41 pm
I’m not sure if this church deal is for real. But I do use XML a lot.
Gideon said,
Wrote on September 12, 2004 @ 4:28 pm
Been there, done that, moving on.
Don’t worry, this will also pass and fade away.
It always does.
bws said,
Wrote on September 13, 2004 @ 8:13 am
amen
Jacob said,
Wrote on September 13, 2004 @ 5:02 pm
Well at least XML files are easy to read&change using VIM
Erik Bakker said,
Wrote on September 13, 2004 @ 10:12 pm
Well, no hot XML women for you : “This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict!”
http://www.zefhemel.com/archives/2004/09/12/the-church-of-xml
Might change, since it’s one of the referrer links
Joost said,
Wrote on October 6, 2004 @ 4:58 pm
Erik, maybe you should read: http://www.zefhemel.com/archives/2004/09/16/visible-xml-is-bad-xml
Alastair Vance said,
Wrote on November 15, 2004 @ 12:13 pm
Am I the only one who thinks XML is shit?
Neil Kerr said,
Wrote on November 15, 2004 @ 12:16 pm
No, Alastair, you are 100% correct. It’s invented by consultants to take even more money from gullible companies
Dr. Bongoots said,
Wrote on November 16, 2004 @ 3:41 pm
http://www.familysearch.org/GEDCOM/GedXML60.pdf
Even the church likes XML!
If only the silly Morons.. whoops.. Mormons would get it implemented and out there, the world would be a much better place. I’d then be able to control my family tree in pure XML
adam machanic :: data manipulation for fun and profit said,
Wrote on November 18, 2004 @ 8:04 pm
The Church of XML
The Church of XML
Irwin Dolobowsky's Blog said,
Wrote on November 20, 2004 @ 1:17 am
Praise XML!
Irwin Dolobowsky's Blog said,
Wrote on November 20, 2004 @ 1:20 am
Praise XML!
Chua Wen Ching said,
Wrote on November 22, 2004 @ 8:40 am
Interesting
Nick Weedon said,
Wrote on November 22, 2004 @ 11:50 pm
We uninstalled our oracle database after we discovered XML…
Niall Litchfield said,
Wrote on November 24, 2004 @ 10:31 am
This is exactly where we are at in our shop right now.
Jared Still said,
Wrote on November 24, 2004 @ 9:22 pm
Oracle was uninstalled and replaced with XML?
* this must be a trivial application
and/or
* the schema and likely the application design left something to be desired.
Tim Gorman said,
Wrote on November 25, 2004 @ 4:46 am
Is there a radical militant wing to join? My AK-47 and I are itchin’ for a dee-bate with some database weenies. Stylesheets are fine, but puttin’ 50 rounds through the same hole in the ol’ 10-ring — now that’s gun control, by god!
Don Green said,
Wrote on December 2, 2004 @ 4:30 am
< ?xml version='1.0'?>
Anonymous Coward said,
Wrote on December 3, 2004 @ 5:53 am
XML certainly has its good points. I feel sorry for the people who simply say ‘it’s sh*t’ without giving something for a reason, but I hold similar caution for those who say it’s everything. It’s certainly a welcome standardisation to a textual format for defining structure. Yeah it’s tree-like, but elements can have IDs to be referenced, to reflect an arbitrary group of entities.
But remember, it’s a standard for structuring data. The performance and functionality on top of that is down to the applications that use it. When Nick Weedon said that he “uninstalled Oracle .. after dicovering XML”, I’m sure he means to make way for the applications that will reflect the functionality that Oracle supported, but using XML data.
I wanted to be a uml groupee said,
Wrote on December 6, 2004 @ 5:40 am
What is XML?
yonas said,
Wrote on December 8, 2004 @ 5:08 pm
XML is the ultimate answer? give us a break
XML UML awk ced vim said,
Wrote on December 9, 2004 @ 11:49 pm
What??? Let the grubby masses into our Church? Never!
XML_UML_awk_ced_vim said,
Wrote on December 9, 2004 @ 11:54 pm
What??? Let the grubby masses into our Church? Never!
Noah said,
Wrote on December 10, 2004 @ 12:13 am
Alleluia to XML!!!!
XML has given a new meaning to my professional life…. it is my professional religion…
Where do I sign up?
s said,
Wrote on April 13, 2005 @ 4:03 am
xml is crap
Nick Weedon said,
Wrote on May 4, 2005 @ 3:55 am
Just so that you all know, my comment about replacing oracle with XML was purely sarcastic.
tese said,
Wrote on July 4, 2005 @ 3:10 pm
tet
DL said,
Wrote on July 5, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
Anonymous Coward:
Present a case to demonstrate that XML provides superlative value.
please no ow my head said,
Wrote on July 8, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
you’ve been seen by Fabian Pascal, XML’s biggest fan. YAY!
http://www.dbdebunk.com/laughcry.html
bowerbird intelligentleman said,
Wrote on July 21, 2005 @ 4:15 am
two steps more advanced than x.m.l. is z.m.l. — zen markup language. just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there… :+)
Jack Fife said,
Wrote on September 7, 2005 @ 2:56 am
XML is normally to verbose for those that are on the performance side of things. So from the techies we normally hear this is the greatest thing since slice bread. From our business partners who have to pay for this methodology we heard how come our cost keep going up. There needs to be a happy medium out there but to get both sides to agree is an never ending story (gee could this be made into a movie). Most XML are being built as a service which means that you will get everything that the service can have. What we should be moving to is an attribute based services that makes the client say give me fields 1,2, and 5 and that is all you
that will be provided. In this way you reduce network traffic, and you are improving performance because you are not sending unwanted data. This process has worked for us for years and we are currently doing over 1 billion processes a month. regards
Rich said,
Wrote on November 8, 2005 @ 12:17 am
Ok, so I’m a worker bee slaving away at my desk when someone from another company dumps a 17 meg XML file on me. Most every app I use to try and open it crashes.
So I get to work with google and find out I have to write my own app to read the damn thing? XML might be great if you’re prepared for it, but if you spring it on some non-programmer, it’s just going to sit there like some giant smoking turd.
Sabrina said,
Wrote on February 24, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
I am going to hell… much more interesting there, in fact, XML is probably written by us hell-lovers… just for fun, to tease the heaven-lovers, and see them become less and less efficient due to this seemingly “heavenly” creation… *evil grin*
Bob said,
Wrote on March 6, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
Isn’t it funny that non-believers comment this article which is published in HTML. They might even read the RSS feed to find more non-believers. It’s like atheists burning candels in a church, asking GOD not to exist.
Erwin Moller said,
Wrote on March 15, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
XML is completely hyped IMHO.
When I first saw it a few years back I thought: “Well, who knows, it must be better than CSV, but probably they screw it up by making it complex, and the textbased approach must be very sloooooow.”
And yes: That is excactly what happened.
I do not understand why a seasoned programmer whould EVER need XML. I surely don’t.
By the way, some XML-maniacs now even created an XML-database. How slow can you get?
Check it out here: http://exist.sourceforge.net/
Well, seriously, I have no problems with XML, but the hype has been around a few years now, and XML is now complex and slow, despite ‘their’ promises they would keep it simple.
If I understand well I need webservices, XSLT, DTD, DOM, parsers, validators, etc to get something done, that any idiot with 1 year VB-script experience codes in a few minutes.
I am sticking to PHP/Java/Postgresql to get my job done.
But please enjoy your XML-church.
I am an atheist anyway.
XML non believer said,
Wrote on November 7, 2006 @ 11:31 am
I agree with jack fife. XML is inefficient.
It is also overly complex IMHO. Been on W3 schools and their
CDCatalog example.. The way they do it - if you wish to look
for a specific album you share the love and get the whole
bleedin XML file just to display XHTML with two results on it.
Just think about the extra network traffic with the thousands
of people who will be using it for things like this.
(Blame W3Schools; it was their example)
For something like this surely PHP&SQL would be a lot better,
Well; certainly a lot more efficient.
arkadas said,
Wrote on April 23, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
It’s really works for me.Thanks dude.