[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> >> >Comma delimited files provide *all*
> >> >the power of XML for relational and OO dumps with much fewer
> >> >inefficiencies and much less cruft (CDATA sections, entities, etc.)
> >>
> >> I disagree - the structure of csv might be a good match for
> >relational data
> >> *if* there was a convenient way of making links between files. Ok,
> >> hyperlinking (XHTML, XLink or whatever) isn't strictly part of
> >the XML spec,
> >> but if you stand back from the spec you see a whole load of layered
> >> technologies. If you stand back from comma delimited files all you see is
> >> smaller comma delimited files.
> >
> >Are you seriously saying people wouldn't know how to layer
> >structured linking on top of CSV? I find this impossible to
> >credit. I have seen the trivial solutions to this many times in CSV.
>
> That isn't what I said at all. My point was that there is already quite a
> degree of sophistication in the XML specs, which I am not aware of existing
> for CSVs.
> Structured linking is but one example, one which comes in handy for dealing
> with relations. I might have chosen something from the OO domain like
> inheritance, or encapsulation though I'm sure you've seen the trivial
> solutions to those as well. These things have been worked out to varying
> extents in XML, but where are the "..the standards gold, vair, purple,
> opposing..."?
Touché. Do you remember a recent post here from a wag definign something called Cardorch? Supposedly it comes from the WWW Rebellion (W3R). I nearly suffocated myself laughing at it because the author brilliantly sent up what the whole panolpy of XML specs could look like if one ditched the XML cruft. I think there is a serious point behind that bit of levity: all the might and magic of XML for structured records processing can be achieved in any other format as long as you have an underlying data model and a set of naming conventions. This includes linking, transforms, and even RDF-type things.
In the allegory you're trying to fill out, the massed Troubadour armies include the bearers of the following standards:
"XML has mindshare: let's use it to forge interop between tools, regardless of the mutation to XML itself"
"XML has mindshare and works well with the Web: let's use it forge peace between the Microsoft and the ABM distributed programming clique, regardless of the mutation to XML itself"
"XML is just text: layer everything else or leave it alone".
Derek Denny-Brown sued for peace in Provençe. I say: bah! To battle: no one profits through such an ugly peace.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
The many heads of XML modeling - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6393
Will XML live up to its promise? - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think11.html
|
