XML had alot of advantages when passing data from one system to another Jim. I used XML extensively recently to send data to and from Insurance carriers and to populate insurance forms. The insurance carriers send the data in xml format when they pass data to agencies denoting their customer's coverages, payments, endorsements, etc. It passes through a middle party for encryption and security purposes as well. We even used XML to store data in memo fields of a table that was used to populate pdf formfields for insurance documents. Most data was stored in SQL or VFP tables (parsed and put into fields) but many times the format was XML being passed to and fro and easily brought into VFP tables from the xml format or stored in any type of file (or memo field in a table) in xml format as well.


>Why do you say "in XML"?
>
>In XML is equivalent to "in English". In other words, neither XML nor English is any kind of place where anything is "stored".
>
>Seems to me that if you store that XML in local data storage then you are only fooling yourself if you believe that "I have never had a single requirement to store data locally when using .NET".
>
>I might even go so far as to postulate that XML is more a contrivance to perpetuate the constant change that many vendors need to keep themselves in business.
>
>cheers
>
>>Bob
>>
>>Not much more to add but ...
>>
>>>You mean like Local Data in .Net?
>>
>>I have never had a single requirement to store data locally when using .NET - period. Most local meta-data is stored in XML. If I wanted real local data in .NET, I would just use MSDE/SQL Server 2005 Express. I don't really see the issue with this? Finally, SQL Everywhere looks like it may just resolve the "local data" issue quite nicely - time will tell.
>>
>>Best