[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thursday 16 January 2003 20:00, W. E. Perry wrote:
> "Alaric B. Snell" wrote:
> > Whereas in a programming language we have to access our XML via various
> > ungainly constructs, in XSLT it's a lot
> > simpler because XSLT's data model is the XML data model so you don't need
> > to do any conversions.
>
> As I said to Joshua Allen, argument by petitio principii: if your (grossly
> limited subset of) XML conforms to a (brittle, agreed a priori) datamodel
> and your programming methodology shares precisely the same datamodel, then
> by virtue of that sharing of that datamodel (or in logical terms the
> identity of premise and conclusion) your XML thus defined will quite likely
> be most conveniently processed (or in the terms of this thread, directly
> accessed) by that similarly limited programming methodology. But because
> this is a clear and simple case of petitio principii, we could substitute
> any two terms in the same relationship for 'XML' and 'programming
> methodology' in this argument ('city' and 'large, complex rabbit', anyone?)
> and assuredly reach the same conclusion. But what of it?
That's pretty much my point stated another way... 'direct access' just means
'the data happens to be based around my native model, lucky me'; it's not
something you can call "good" or "bad", I don't think. If it's bad then XPath
and XSLT would be bad since they are processing tools that are based directly
on the XML model; if you were into 'loose coupling' in the sense that many
XML-for-data fans seem to use it, then you would *always* have to explicitly
convert data models between interchange and processing, and hence never use
processing tools that don't require conversion, n'est pas?
>
> Walter Perry
>
ABS
--
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
- ARP
|
