[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The relentless march of abstraction
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Dave Winer <email@example.com>,"XML-Dev (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:14:11 -0600
Umm... if the infoset is hiding information
not revealed in the syntax, it certainly is for
the working programmer. It is a mess to find
out the data model isn't shared by
writing queries or transforms while the
processor silently appends properties.
The algebra proofs should be hidden.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Tim Bray [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 11:46 AM
To: Dave Winer; XML-Dev (E-mail)
Subject: Re: The relentless march of abstraction
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
>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