[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: APIs, messaging
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Uche Ogbuji <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:29:30 -0500
As do I. I just find myself fighting battles
to keep domains clean these days. It is hard to
do with all of these metalanguages floating around
competing for mindshare and warping concepts
along the way.
On the other hand, I can build quite a bit
of stuff and never touch XLinks (useful though
it is). I can build a lot less without namespaces
because I can't aggregate in a file without it.
We only need namespace because we cracked the
wall of the document root as named in the doctype
and made a hierarchical namespace do a join so to speak.
This is an excellent topic for a boundary layer
discussion. Namespace entered the class
definitions as a sort of "demanded hidden
attribute value". So it's there in the grove/infoset.
An XLink would not be in the core grove/infoset.
Let's not revisit the namespaceAsNamedSemantic
thread today. Nosebleed city and my anemia is
at dangerous levels already. :-)
Separate question: do you think the modeling language
can warp the XML? Do you find yourself stuffing wrapper tags
a) need the triple and the hierarchy gets unbalanced
so you find yourself putting in a extra tag as switch
b) someone requires a context-free parse
In either case, something like <children> or
<propertySets> enters an otherwise content-based
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:email@example.com]
Sure. But I consider XLink a core application of XML as much as one
may consider object definition languare a core facility of ODMG. I think
this is pretty much a matter of user preference. After all, even
namespaces are just a layer on top.