[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The relentless march of abstraction
- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- To: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>, "XML-Dev (E-mail)" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:45:30 -0800
At 04:38 PM 26/02/01 -0800, Dave Winer wrote:
> I've always felt
>that schema are only needed if you're storing XML content in a relational
>database, but so many applications don't require a relational approach, in
>fact I'd argue that there's nothing about XML that requires a relational db,
>but of course that's what "most people" use, so put the burden on XML, well
>I don't buy it. If it's not needed and it adds complexity let's us an
>approach that doesn't require it.
Well, lots of other people have uses for schemas outside of the
RDBMS arena. I agree with Megginson that a lot of people expect
more magic & mojo from schemas than they'll deliver in the real
world. Still, very useful for industrial language designers; and
I think the datatype stuff will actually turn out to be useful
in lots of places.
Having said all that, I agree that the infoset is a tool for
people building the XML family spec infrastructure, not for
ordinary programmers doing real work. -Tim