[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] (data) medium is the message
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 13:19:22 -0400
- In-reply-to: <601F6322AD71D5118D6C00034725152910FF247D@sjmemexc1.stjude.org>
Peter.Hunsberger@stjude.org (Hunsberger, Peter) writes:
>> At the same time, though, I think there's a huge difference
>> between the expectations of relational databases - which
>> really demand a schema upfront before you're allowed to work
>> with data - and XML, which has no such requirements. No
>> rules, no violation - no harm, no foul.
>
>That is currently true, but in my other response to this thread I sort
>of point out that this may be less and less true going forward. If
>you want to have any half way decent treatment of your XML (say even
>within your application) you may need a schema just to tell a parser
>how to optimally parse your XML. This schema may come about after the
>fact, but by the time you get to doing data exchange it should be
>hanging around. Certainly, it seems an unreasonable expectation that
>one can have much in the way of automated (or efficient manual)
>generalized mappings without a schema (or equivalent metadata) on both
>sides of the fence.
That's assuming that your application is expected to know everything
about incoming data up-front. There are plenty of cases where that
isn't necessarily true. Stylesheets and similar mechanisms may provide
information outside of a schema context, and human intervention may be a
very reasonable expectation in many cases. Automation may create as
many problems as it solves.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|