[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: XML versus Relational Database
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 13:00:16 -0600
Understood and while I like to have choices,
I am watching one fairly important language
effort derail because early in the development
cycle, they chose to specify multiple bindings
without really separating the syntax away from the
abstract property definitions. Multiple
encodings are madness without that. As a
result, it is unlikely they will be able
to write a spec to govern all of the
quickly emerging and competitive language
variants. XML is no help here; it is a
competitor which divides some and rallies
other, but ultimately, as the Grovesters
discovered, markup is inadequate for
for standardization of systems if adequate
for specifications of syntax-centric vocabularies.
And so, of course, the prose is normative
and the choice of means open to interpretation,
thus, interoperability is elusive.
Linda's question could be answered with a
laundry list, and perhaps that is what she
wants. I'd say that on top of that list,
DOM support is item number 1.
What do you think of this article?
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: John Cowan [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
The features all XML systems (i.e. processors)
*must* support is very restrictive, and doesn't
at present even include GIs or element nesting.
*Should* support, well, who knows? That's why
the Infoset doesn't pretend to be normative;
it's a library of names of features thought to
be generally useful.