Re: COBOL and XML (was Re: OT - "lie" vs "error")

If you think that having native XML support added to the standard is a bad i
dea,
you really SHOULD communicate this to your "national standards body".  The
current J4 development was (as Chuck already pointed out) prompted by the HI
GH
priority that the "national representatives" in WG4 placed on this.  If you
think YOUR national body should oppose it, then communicate this to them "AS
AP".
(I don't guarantee that they will agree - or that your national body's opini
on
will "win" at WG4, but if you don't communicate your opinion, then I *can*
guarantee that it won't be considered.)

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Gyebe.25206$5f.19431@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:pIcbe.1044776$za2.165503@news.easynews.com... 
>
> It seems  a strange solution? Why not have native language support for log
ging
> ? Why not have native language support for a messaging service? Why not ha
ve
> native language support for both - logging via XML over JMS?
>
> It seems a strange request to have a native solution to a dynamic environm
ent.
> The XML of 2002 is nothing like the XML of 2005.   When I was more active 
in
> this I was downloading Xerces almost monthly.
>
> It will be another problem for COBOL to maintain adoption of new standards
.
> Java version 5 came a significant while after Java 2 - but in the middle c
ame
> changes to a vast number of api's (and adoptions of said APIs).  I would a
rgue
> that standard cryptography should have higher precedence than XML handling
 if
> we're going to pick and choose.
>
> A native language is not a solution framework.
>
> I don't think that it is a viable business model anyway to be resonding to
> "pressure".  Successful companies are ahead of the pressure points.   A st
itch
> in time......
> 
>
> And I'm sure that the next major enhancement for 5 years will be the bigge
st
> reason for upgrading their compilers since, well the prior upgrade.
>
> JCE
>