[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > <counter-troll> The phrase <troll> XML is a <phrase>data model</phrase>,
> > the syntax in the XML 1.0 REC is just an annoying inconvenience.
> > </troll>
> > does not appear in XML 1.0, therefore XML has no data model whatever,
> > since the Infoset isn't one and doesn't claim to be.</countertroll>
>
> <fishing locus="bridge">
> Say rather that XML has no *unique authoritative* data model whatever,
> since the Infoset isn't one and doesn't claim to be. But why should there
> be such a thing? XML has many data models for different purposes.
> The Infoset provides a common terminology into which they can be translated.
> </fishing>
Fair enough. I like specs that are unique and authoritative because they
save endless argument ... So I say "no data model" rather than "many
models that claim to be data models." A saving of breath.
All this aside -- it is a truth universally acknowledged that most XML
processors are in need of a tree with a single root (SAX aside). If we
don't want to call that a data model, let's call it a paradigm. JITTs seek
to change that paradigm.
Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm)
Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools: www.gooseworks.org
XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
