> From: Wendell Piez
> This is a legitimate concern. And it is exactly why (or one
> reason why)
> it's good to have standards hawks around (like you, Peter :-), who
> understand that the basic principle of designing the data
> format to the
> requirements for the data -- NOT to the tools of the moment
> -- and then
> designing the system to support and express the data format, remains a
> solid one, and not just for ivory-tower academics but for any
> concern whose
> information is their real asset: not only is it the right way
> to do it; it
> saves you $$$ in the long run. And that strong, implementable,
> vendor-neutral standards are essential to this.
One of the blockers in this move is the business case for moving
to XML. To bean counters its extraordinarily difficult to see
the advantages of a technology that you don't understand, making
a move away from familiar (it worked for n years why change) ground,
into something that still seems to be unstable and new, and even
highly likely to change.
The capital and resource costs for the initial move need very
careful assessment, and payback is always looked on with scepticism.
I've seen one costed submission which made sense.
Is this something others have problems with? From the inside its
so obvious, but when you stand in the bean counters shoes its not.
Were a number of case studies available as reference others might
say 'hey, that business isn't too far from ours, I wonder if....'