quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
>XML transforms are a simplified form of compilation process.
ugh - so what?

So there''s nothing special about them. You can transform between non-XML documents too. How difficult it is to do depends upon the complexity of the transforms - just like with XSLT.

quote:
Exactly my point - I''m not sure if you realise just how much XML IS used..I''m afraid it''s not all hype.

Right. It''s used a lot *because* of the hype. Using the technology does not automatically justify the hype. There is nothing intrinsically special about XML, it doesn''t solve much that didn''t already have a solution, and it''s arguably weaker than pre-existing solutions. Therefore, the only thing that makes XML distinct is the hype itself.

quote:
It might not be used, at present, in the game industry - but most projects I''ve worked on from Defence to Publishing are and have been using it as the basis of new systems and wireing to legacey systems.

I''ve used XML a lot, including tasks such as defining XML documents and interfaces for large organisations. I''ve never particularly found the use of XML to be beneficial over alternatives.

quote:
Oh and the fact that XSLT IS XML of course.

So what?

quote:
Really? I guess you said the same things about other emerging technolgies that you use everyday now..

You''re missing the point. Agreeing upon a standardised document format has more to do with the contents of the document than the meta-format used to describe the document. Once the actual content is agreed upon, it is very simple to encode it in XML, ASN.1, some binary format, symbolic expressions, key-value pairs, or whatever takes your fancy. The encoding is not the problem preventing document format standardisation.

quote:
I agree that XML has a load of hype and people do get blinded by it - you evidently have been.

You think so? What "evidence" have you seen that I have been "blinded" by XML?

quote:
I use these technolgies every day - and have since before the XML hype - when its big sister SGML was already being used and had proven itself in the electronic publishing industry as a very powerful way to format and describe data.

Do you know who Erik Naggum is?

I doubt we''re going to agree - mainly because we''re flipping between different arguments. Whether XML is just hype - Whether we''re talking about document standardisation or XML etc etc. I do actually agree with some of you points - but I as I said I don''t think we''re discussiong the SAME points.

What I''ve been trying to say is that whether XML is being used because of hype alone or not is not the issue - the fact that it is being used widely, in other industries, means that the supporting technologies have been invested in heavily - making it more than the sum of its parts. Also the more people that use it mean that it is/(will become) easier to share XML than it is to share non-XML data (as the supporting technologies are already there to do so). Whether you agree that XML has a lot of implicit benefits or not it really comes down to the VSH/Betamax scenario - I''d rather support what everyone else is.

I''m not going to post anymore on this as I think we''re going slightly off topic (and life is too short), but I will obviously read your reply.

Oh yes - I have heard of Erik Naggum..

quote: Original post by Anonymous Poster
What I''ve been trying to say is that whether XML is being used because of hype alone or not is not the issue - the fact that it is being used widely, in other industries, means that the supporting technologies have been invested in heavily - making it more than the sum of its parts.

Right. But the issue, at least for me, is whether that means it is a good solution for a particular problem. The source of my gripe is that people tend to see the hype surrounding XML without understanding the rationale behind it. That leads to a scenario where many organisations will use XML for all their data representation needs, which is a thoughtless strategy often leading to wasted effort. I''ve lost count of the number of people I''ve met who think that XML solves *any* problem related to data; half the IT world seems to have lost the ability to actually model data. The problems of structure are independent of representation, which means having a representation format such as XML does not make your structural modelling problems disappear. So, when people try and imply that a document encoded as XML is magically accessible by other programs or even other organisations around the world, they are missing the entire point that data still needs to be modelled, which is by far the harder problem.

quote:
Also the more people that use it mean that it is/(will become) easier to share XML than it is to share non-XML data (as the supporting technologies are already there to do so).

I don''t fully agree. For example, it is not necessarily harder to read a series of ASCII-encoded key-value pairs that it is to read the same data in XML format.

quote:
Whether you agree that XML has a lot of implicit benefits or not it really comes down to the VSH/Betamax scenario - I''d rather support what everyone else is.

This is the core point. Just because your documents are encoded as XML does not make you compatible with everyone else.

key value pairs sure ... but what about complex hierarchial data structures. Show me an easy way to store that type of "parent-child" information in a simple text file, and then show me an easy way of parsing and updating it programmatically.

:-)

You''re both talking hype (pro/con)... back up your arguments with examples such as the one above that reinforce your side.

Joel Martinez
http://www.codecube.net/

quote: Original post by joelmartinez
key value pairs sure ... but what about complex hierarchial data structures.

You wouldn''t use key-value pairs for that. Please try and concentrate on the context of the statement, which was a rebuttal of "the more people that use [XML] [...] it (will become) easier to share XML than it is to share non-XML data". The point being, XML is *not* the solution to all data needs.

You''re right ... and neither is any other method. What I said before was that you were both speaking in pro/con hype, and as such were not going anywhere.

instead of continuing to bash XML and XML users, make a statement such as ...
"XML is good for storing complex data structures in an easy to understand format. However, it''s shortcomings appear when trying to store simple information where a simple csv file would be much more efficient".

the thing I hate about both sides of the XML camp is that they always speak in generalisations. Either XML will cure all your problems, or it''s the bane of your existence.

Joel Martinez
http://www.codecube.net/

quote: Original post by joelmartinez
instead of continuing to bash XML and XML users, make a statement such as ...
"XML is good for storing complex data structures in an easy to understand format. However, it''s shortcomings appear when trying to store simple information where a simple csv file would be much more efficient".

The reason I won''t make such a statement is it does not accurately summarise my position. I provided one example of where XML is not a good solution, that doesn''t mean the example is the entirety of my argument.

So, could you use several different languages in unison? I mean let''s take a computer based programming language like C++, and have embedded code that translates to XML and any other network based languages. There could be a hiearchy of code that functions much like a business does. I mean C++ could be like the CEO of a company, and the codes that handle certain jobs better than the other will be assigned to do that job. XML will do all the big network data recalling, and &#106avascript can handle how to display the code that has been called(or maybe it can''t I''m clueless due to my beginning level.) <br><br>If you were to give all code a place, like in a company, what would it be, and what specialties would they perform. Feel free to name popular or obscure codes, for I''m willing to learn them all and to make as many of them work together as possable.<br><br>Give examples of what type of games they could be used in. I need to learn as much as I can.<br><br>Thank you.

well, just a slight redefinition of some of your terms first.

XML is not a language ... it''s merely a technique of storing data. And as some have posted earlier in this thread, much work has gone into supporting technologies for this such as x-path, xsl, etc ...

For the most part, you''ll see an advantage in using XML when you want to easily be able to parse a relatively complex data structure (such as one with parent child relationships).

You probably won''t see &#106avascript used in conjunction with C++ as it''s usually used as a client side scripting language for web pages.

depending on wether you want to solely develop on windows, you might want to go with C#, as the benefits of learning C# go way beyond the realm of game making (tools development, web applications, web services, etc..).
else, stick with C++ for all your game making needs :-)

Joel Martinez
http://www.codecube.net/

I think that XML is good for passing data between to systems and this is were it's strenghs are.

XML provides a way for 2 different business's to exchange data with out knowing the in's and out's of the others system or file format.

I can't see any other soloution out there that has the same flexiablity as XML.

using it with databases is handy also because you can build any frontend that reads xml or even change the backend without having to do a big recode of the front end.

as for it's use in the games world. Well I can't see becoming massive as of yet because of the bloated file size.

but with faster and cheaper memory on the way i am sure it will take off.

just my 2 Pence.

[edited by - themonkster on February 11, 2003 7:33:50 PM]