http://blogs.tedneward.com/2006/06/26/The+Vietnam+Of+Computer+Science.aspx

This is such a good article.

Any attempt at or>xml mapping could be caught/fraught with issues.
Another boundary is that of the distinction of data & information.
Data is raw. Information is meaningful data.
Meaningful is contextual.
Context is a matter of perception.
Perception is not always reality.
</end.of.suck.eggs.yak>

Not that I have any real answer to this.
Though I have noticed that to some, xml is refreshingly raw.
For instance I understand that some airport baggage handling software uses xml.
It's data, it shifts the bag, it expires.

One possible reason to map xml may be to avoid the knarly world of REXml.
Which is actually pretty good in a martial sort of way.
Avoidance does not mean not using.
http://xml-simple.rubyforge.org/
This wraps around Rex in a Ruby sort of way.
Not ORMing.
Though even when using a wrapper like this, usually there will be a
0-day when one has to go under the hood.

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-matters18.html
There is another article in alphaworks, canna find now.
It described a wrapper technique using method_notfound.
There was trouble with the '.' occasionally found in the element name..
(Just read your post Trans).

xmlification has been discontinued?
http://newsattic.com/d/hl/xmlification.html

Advantages & disadvantages:
XML is an adv. when debugging, being simple.
Mapping via the xml may be better than via the DTD as flexibility
could be a adv.
In that when the data structure is not totally defined, the mapping
regenerates a 'schema'.
In the arena of impedance mis-match, 2 many mode-shifts betwixt disk &
browser can send you to the corner shop.
When moving towards an object design there is a mapping back to get to
a structure which can be delivered to an xml-database.
Going raw to BDBxml is a major performance advantage.

Design can also factor in the cost of debugging.
If this is to be a tool of general purpose, then it has a high-hit factor.
Would the mapper be suitable if there were to be two storage regimes?
One for development (easy to debug), another for deployment (performance).

How many frameworks are ultimately involved?
xml implies browser interaction?
xml being manipulated by ECMAscript?

These are of course, questions I've been rattling with recently.

Is Ruby too much fun?

MarkT