Re: Web enablement options (previously private)

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