[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim,
Tim Bray wrote:
> 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.
I obviously disagree but was wondering if there is a record of this
"deliberate, careful design decision" in canonical or non-canonical
documentation about the drafting of XML? (If enforced nesting of
elements is not a defacto data model I am not sure what definition is
being used for data model. Not using the words "data model" does not
make it any less a data model.)
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu
|
