[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Michael Kay wrote:
> The problem is that it should have an underlying model, but it hasn't:
I couldn't disagree more. Defining the syntax without the underlying
data model *maximizes* interoperability because it reduces the number of
shared assumptions. The notion that two organizations will share the
data model for a purchase order or a bill of materials is just silly,
but they can often deal with each others' serialized output. The
evidence in the field is overwhelmingly on my side.
XML's lack of a data model is a deliberate, careful design decision, and
the evidence of recent years is that it was correct.
> it only has a "overlying" model (the InfoSet) that is retrofitted to the
> syntax.
Correct.
> If people had defined the model before
> defining the syntax we wouldn't be in this mess.
If we had tried to define the one true data model before defining XML,
either (a) we'd still be in committee meetings or (b) XML would have
been yet another big heavy API that would have fallen with a thud on the
floor and been generally ignored. -Tim
|
