Talk:Plain Old XML

some pecularities
Could these be explained? patsw 13:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I'd like explained is this: "many POX users eschew XML Schema to avoid the poor or inconsistent quality of XML Schema-to-Java tools". It sounds like a non sequitur. Why can't they use XML schema, but not the Schema-to-Java tools? Mcswell (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because you lose the most obvious benefit of XML Schemas when you do that: automatic generation and verification of data that conforms to the schema. Spending a lot of time crafting a schema that exactly captures the data and its constraints is only worth it if you have strong guarantees that it will actually be used.
 * This problem is by no means specific to Java; the .NET tools are no picknick either. Many of the more complicated schema options are poorly supported or not at all, requiring manual intervention to produce compliant endpoints. 212.178.108.2 (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

POX - Schema
It's not too evident in the article what's so interesting about POXs relation to XML Schema. 194.157.147.48 15:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

RDF - XML
RDF has nothing to do with "multilayered XML". You have several syntax for RDF, like RDF/XML, but others exist as well like N3. -- 194.242.114.97 06:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

POX vs REST
"REST could be seen as POX over HTTP with some peculiarities."

REST can use other data formats than XML and doesn't necessarily have to be based on HTTP. --87.165.56.234 20:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of WP:MADEUP
I removed WP:MADEUP after adding links to three credible, unrelated sources (Microsoft Developer Network, Microformats.org, and the Java Spring Framework) all using the term "POX" in the same way. Can add more if needed -- it's a fairly widely-used term in the XML community, and doesn't belong to any specific vendor (in fact, it's a hard thing for a vendor to sell, just like a POJO). David (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)