|
|
Re: [xml-dev] Syntax + object model
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 24/05/2003 17:24:47 GMT Daylight Time, joshuaa@microsoft.com writes:
What you are describing is a "data model", not an "object model".
XML *has* a very useful standardized data model [1] that coexists with
the serialization syntax, and I predict that both will survive for a
very long time.
Regards,
Joshua
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-query-datamodel-20011220/
Joshua,
On what date did the data model you refer to become a standard?
I would tend to use a future conditional .... "XML may have *another* useful ....". And I suspect that some might want to debate the parsing of "another useful". :)
Of course, the XQuery 1.0 / XPath 2.0 data model doesn't quite express all of an XML document / chunk of data. I guess it aimed not for the 80/20 point but the 95/5 or 98/2 point. Not covering quite all of XML is acceptable, I think, but in parallel it does have some limitations - but it's probably fit for purpose.
No, I don't expect that the XQuery / XPath 2.0 data model will fall at CR/PR stage. Imagine if it did get voted down. That would go right off the Richter scale. :)
Like you I expect both the serialization syntax and the XQuery / XPath 2.0 data model (with all its blemishes) to be long standing sources of benefit / activity / irritation / permathreads on this list and elsewhere.
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|