Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 07:56 PM 9/27/2002 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>That information doesn't always come in neat table/object boxes.
>That a set of data types developed for efficient storage in a particular
>implementation situation may or may not work in other situations, or,
>Even getting SQL and Java (or other programming environ) people to agree
>about data modeling issues is difficult enough that I can't figure out
>where they get the courage to think their values are appropriate for the
>rest of the universe.
>That the perspectives of programmers matter more than the opinions of
>In short, although I work with both Java and SQL, I do my damndest to
>keep those perspectives in their own contexts and not pretend they have
>anything at all to do with markup.
>Funny thing is, people who can't recognize those boundaries yammer on
>and on about how the boundaries don't exist, and keep producing enormous
>piles of junk that purport to organize the markup world in ways that
>have really not a thing to do with marking up.
Hmmm...let's ignore for now what's wrong with people who disagree with you
and try a simpler question.
If I take an integer out of a relational database and give it to a Java
program, I would often like the Java program to know that it is an integer.
Not just for one XML vocabulary, because I want to write tools that can
handle more than one XML vocabulary. What's wrong with that?
I would like to have a small number of constructs, such as hrefs, that can
be used across XML vocabularies. What's wrong with that?