[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: breaking up?
- From: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 13:09:53 -0700
from Simon St.Laurent:
> On 06 Aug 2001 15:25:49 +0100, Leigh Dodds wrote:
> > > Sort of a document-says-it-all vs. infoset-says-it-all breakdown,
> > > complicated by other divides (document/data, object/RDBMS/document,
> > > etc.).
> > Are you suggesting that these are orthogonal divides? I'm not sure
> > that they are, and wonder whether document vs. infoset is actually
> > document vs. data, just in a slightly different guise.
> I used to think that data folks gravitated toward the Infoset, but it
> doesn't seem to be that simple.
Actually I guess I'm not sure I see what the issue is with the notion
of infosets. "The" infoset (draft, still) isn't what I want it to be (since
it still includes "lexical noise", which for better or worse I attribute
to its DOM support), but it's still not what I think "data folk" need
(they need a richer typing model, and concluded that DTDs don't
offer the right toolset).
I'd agree there's a kind of complexity horizon. Like a black hole
(of ink? :), there are some XML-labeled things that, one you cross
over their line, seem to take you into another world where you can
no longer see the (simpler) world you came from.
> I've talked with a few too many data
> people who find the layers built on top of XML 1.0 to be excessively
> complex to believe that statement works generally any more. ...
> In some of the cases they were shuttling information between dissimilar
> systems with wildly varying levels of support for schemas of any flavor,
> and found that their expectations based on the stories of what schema
> will do were just plain wrong. (I wrote some of those stories myself, of
Building on that analogy, perhaps the XML Universe has more than
one black hole, and W3C schemas are just one big one? :)