[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Data Model(s) for XML 1.0 / XML Devcon / DOM / XSL / Query
- From: Ben Trafford <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: XML DEV <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:16:22 -0800
At 05:29 PM 2/23/2001 +0000, Sean McGrath wrote:
> >Sean McGrath wrote:
> > > isn't it time to accept that not specifying formal
> > > post-parse data model(s) for XML 1.0 was a big
> > > mistake?
>At 12:18 PM 2/23/01 -0500, W. E. Perry wrote:
> >In a word, no. Those post-parse plus post-additional-processing data
> >models are in effect being specified now by, among others, the very
> >groups whose work you cite here.
>Ah yes, but the after-the-fact, bifurcated struggle to hone in
>on post-parse data models has resulted in nasty impedance
>mismatches between some key, horizontal XML technologies
>that should be living in harmony but are not.
A lot of these discussions (especially in regards to the evolution
of XPath-based languages like XSLT and XQuery, the lack of cohesion between
XML specs, interdependencies, etc.) sounds to me like: Why didn't you build
the perfect thing the first time?
It's fairly evident that XML technology needs to continue to
mature. These sorts of discussions help immensely. However, I must confess
that I'd like to see a lot more work like RDDL happen. That's a good
example of where somebody complained about something, the list chewed on it
for a while, then somebody got off their behind and made something happen
to address the issue.
What I'm hearing a lot on the list these days is much vapour,
If people don't like something about XML, propose a solution,
implement it, and make it available. RDDL has done that, to great response.
Heck, we're even using it where I work. Just because W3C produces
recommendations that get big company backing, etc., doesn't mean that it's
the only place where significant XML work can be done. Note the success of
SAX, which is not W3C-based.
I agree with both Sean and Walter on this issue. In Walter's case,
I agree that having a single, simple XML specification creates a basic
framework from which we can develop interoperability. I agree with Sean
that now is the time for a post-parse data model. One of the things that I
am currently struggling with in my own work (to be made public any day now,
I promise, just like I have been for the last year!) is getting linking
information to survive document transformation. If the XSL and XLink WGs
had done more work, earlier, to ratify something, this wouldn't be such a
hairy mess. But they didn't, and in my opinion, a post-parse data model
would have nicely handled that.
Anybody got any suggestions for such a data model? I haven't been
paying close attention to what's been going on out there...