[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
mc@xegesis.org (Mike Champion) writes:
>The success of XSLT, XPath, and the (probable) success of at least the
>hard core of XQuery is a strong counter-example to this assertion.
>None of those operate on syntax. We can argue about whether the XPath
>data model is an "object model" or not, but it ain't syntax. An XSLT
>stylesheet that had to consider all the multiple possible syntactical
>variations on legal input would be a nightmare. An XQuery join across
>an RDBMS and an XML data store is simply inconceiveable at the syntax
>level.
In that sense, the existence of programming languages is a
counter-example - so what. Every time I process XML syntax with Java,
I'm doing a bytes-to-data-model conversion, but I don't regard that as a
claim that we're really exchanging models. And I can join XML data and
RDBMS information in Java too - that doesn't change XML itself in the
least.
>The XML syntax and data model are joined at the hip. (OK, there are
>multiple data models, but the different flavors vary mainly with
>respect to the namespace and schema type stuff that has caused no end
>of controversy all across the XML spectrum).
I spend too much of my time working around all of those data models,
ignoring the schema stuff to the extent possible and trying to ensure
that the namespaces don't bite anyone. That "joining at the hip" is not
as natural as it seems.
>Without the data
>model(s) XML is useful mainly by hard core developers skilled in
>regexes and formal grammars;
We're stuck there because no one's taken the time to make it easier to
work with the syntax directly - heck, the W3C's done a nice job of
making it extra difficult to do so, thanks to namespaces, scoped
attribute values, and the like. Working through that mess is the main
focus of my programming work at the moment.
>without the stamdard syntax those
>abstract data models can't be shared without some sort of private
>contract about serialization. Why do we get tangled in this
>permathread every month or two?
>From my perspective, it's because people who work in models mysteriously
think they have a better idea than those who work in syntax. The
possibility that they're mistaken doesn't seem to occur to them until
they've restarted the permathread.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
