>>IMO - XML is better but not quite ready for prime time.
>
>I'm not sure you can say that. XML is what you make it, which is why XML is so powerful. You don't need any infrastructure to do XML other than a parser and even that is not essential if you stick to simple XML structures.
>
>Everything else is up to your application and framework.
>
>I like XML because it gives me full control over the data transfer mechanism. I don't need any black box components from Microsoft that'll break in the next rev. I'm doing nothing more than passing strings with encoded data back and forth and I'm using standard HTTP (and tools) and a plain Web backend (which could be anything from ASP to Perl Scripts to Web Connection).
>
>Frankly, I couldn't care less with a lot of the 'framework' features that various vendors are coming up with to wrap around XML. Other than standardization (ie. schema sharing) these initiatives are just another way for vendors to wrap their proprietary stamp on an essentially open standard. And the bottom line is that doing these things 'manually' even with raw code is not bad at all once you've done it once or twice. Once you wrap this stuff into a few simple client and server classes (or script modules) you have a framework of your own that can be debugged an analyzed from front to back without any hidden black box code.
>
>
>Just some food for thought...

But, XML works only in IE5, insn't it?
Mark