Nathan,

You are right that it is easier, and in most cases, better to pass html
to the
browser. When you start to target multiple formats from the same data
source, XML is likely to be a better choice.

XML to the browser is not practical except in a very controlled
environment.
It will take a couple of years before it is practical. Today, it is
very practical
to transform XML to HTML, or any other format for presentation. Cocoon,

another open source project that works great on the iSeries, but has
trouble
getting along with WebSphere, is a publishing framework that fits that
niche.

David Morris

>>> nandelin@relational-data.com 01/04/02 12:37PM >>>
From: "Rob Dixon" <rob.dixon@erros.co.uk>
> It could easily generate XML as well if I could find a use for it.

If the concept of "Web Services" ever takes off, then there will be a
use
for XML.

As far as downloading XML to the browser, and using it in the user
interface?  That's a good question!  Is anybody using client-side
script and
XML to generate the user interface?  I've read some book chapters on
the
subject, but haven't quite got the picture.  It seems so much easier
to
simply download HTML.  Any other views would be appreciated.

Nathan M. Andelin
www.relational-data.com



As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.