Interesting Monday.

James Robertson jamesr at
Mon Feb 1 23:17:05 GMT 1999

At 20:29 1/02/1999 , Matthew Sergeant (EML) wrote:

  | My problem was slightly different. I needed to be ready for the 5.0
  | (probably IE5, although I'd prefer NS5), and XML seemed ideal because we
  | would be displaying/editing documents that look like data (or data that
  | looks like a document if you like). We really needed an object
database, but
  | I needed to get moving quickly (a typical web project: "Can we have it
  | yesterday"). Learning an object database wasn't a possibility. I already
  | knew XML. So I looked at it like this - we could have it 2 ways:
  | 1) Store XML now, process into HTML now, Transmit XML in the future.
  | 2) Store in RDBMS now, process into HTML now, process into XML in the
  | future.

I would personally recommend a third option:

3) Store in RDBMS now, process into XML, process this into HTML now.
   Process the XML into whatever you want in the future.

I have been using this in an electronic publishing system, and while
it seems like overkill, it isn't. It both makes the generation of HTML
easier, and inserts a very nice level of abstraction into the whole

For example, you can change the structure of the RDBMS without having
to worry about the HTML, etc, as long as the XML DTD is still valid.

And if you want to generate paper, online help, etc it is much 
easier from the XML.



James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
jamesr at

"Beyond the Idea"
 ACN 081 019 623

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as:
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list