Data-Centric Xml: Fill & Download for Free

Let's see here three main types of XML documents:1.Data-centric XML documentsData-centric XML documents can contain either structured or semi-structured data, depending on whether they are schema (follow a strict definition) or schema-less. These documentsusually consist of many, small data items. Data-centric documents are usually transported to XML from a DBMS for display or exchange and processing over the web.2. Document-centric XML documentsUsually contain large amounts of text and few or no data items.3. Hybrid XML documentsHybrid XML documents are a combination of data-centric and document-centric XML document types.Read more here : XML Document Types Three main types of XML documents Data centric XML Many | Course Hero

I used to work at Microsoft a while ago, so I may have enough tribal knowledge to answer. I'll give it a shot, but the best answer would probably come from them directly.Your question specifically calls out Microsoft, so I feel the need first explain the history of how and why Microsoft started to use XML in the first place.In the 90's, programmers started adopting the Java programming language because it was capable of running on many different operating systems without much hassle. The rise of Java threatened Microsoft's market position. They decided to introduce a platform similar to Java called .Net..Net needed a way to communicate with other programs on other systems. They decided to use XML for a number of well intentioned reasons:XML is extensible; different namespaces can define the particular XML file's semantics. This allows for defining and communicating many different and (sometimes exotic) data types.the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) had decided it wanted to migrate HTML toward being XML parsable -- so lots of people were already using XMLXML is (supposed to be) both human-readable and machine-readable., etc.One of the shortcomings of XML is that it defines syntax, not semantics. Microsoft's solution was to create SOAP and WSDL to embed semantics into XML syntax. However, both SOAP and WSDL are very verbose and nearly impossible to write by hand.Microsoft traded the "human-readable" part of the XML promise for a different promise of "easy to program." In my opinion, this a classic example of "the tail wagging the dog". Humans using machines to define XML that was intended to be human-readable but now was being read AND defined only by machines. You end up with garbled machine-centric XML.So, TL;DRMicrosoft uses XML an an interchange for historical reasons. XML is very verbose when trying to define both syntax and semantics. Visual Studio writes complex non-human compatible XML.

Thinking you are writing an “iOS App”.Specifically, if you are not abstracting the UI entirely from the business rules and other logic, and the UI is only a thin veneer on top of things, you are doing it wrong.Apple’s tools foster a UI-centric App design: you build a UI in a UI Builder, and then you fill in behind the UI with whatever you need to, in order to make the App functional.What this means is that any substantive UI changes in the future are going to cost you substantive changes in your code.Apple’s CoreData also has this problem, not separating the back end data store’s schema from the methods used to implement access to that data. In other words, it conflates “Model” with “Controller”, and ignores “View” entirely.This is why you can have an iTunes Library that’s essentially stored in XML, but you can’t use the “X” part of the “XML” to do clever or interesting things — if you try to do that (XML = eXtensible Markup Language), iTunes won’t understand some of the XML, or pass it through transparently, without modifying what it does not understand.Instead, it will rebuild the library on you, considering the XML as derived data, rather than an underlying schema on which iTunes view on things is merely a view.This is also why downgrading is a three toed bitch, and upgrading requires your App to understand both data formats, separately from each other — and most people’s Apps do not receive substantial functional upgrades because of that.Especially if the data is shared between multiple devices, or platforms — such as iOS and a macOS desktop App via iCloud.So I would say the biggest mistake you can make is UI-centric design, and using some of the tools provided, rather than other techniques that have been known for decades.Note that this also makes it nearly impossible to also add a Web App to access your back end from any browser, and it hinders portability of your App to Android and other platforms.While this may suit Apple — you not selling your App on non-Apple platforms — it probably does not suit your business, if you intend to build a core business around something, rather than your App being just a single or a couple of Apple platforms “One Off”.Note that most CS people can recognize these things — at least if they did not grow up in the “everything is a Framework, and it’s already written for you” Lego-verse of modern development.Most neophyte coders coming out of a “Coding Bootcamp” or a “You Can Write An iOS App!” YouTube mental-verse, which is where most Apps come from these days.