OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] heritage (was Re: [xml-dev] SGML on the Web)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]


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 Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS