[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Others may see the distinction differently (and certainly with more of
an understanding of the historical basis), but here's how I see it:
Data-centric: The whole Schema crowd, who tend to see XML documents as
equivalent to hierarchical databases (I assume, BTW, that the database
analogy was where the "Schema" name came from). Generally usage is
focused on XML as a format for exchanging data between applications.
Rarely if ever uses the SGML legacy parts of XML, such as DTD,
non-character entities, CDATA, etc. Generally avoids mixed content. Some
formats of this type (SOAP, for one) go so far as to only support
subsets of XML.
Document-centric: People using XML for marked-up text, including RDF,
DocBook, etc. Mixed content common, along with DTDs, entities of all
types, etc. I see this as the original focus of XML, but now outgrown by
the data-centric type of usage.
SOAP isn't the only XML usage in the data-centric camp that has
subsetted XML. Most of the data binding frameworks, for instance, don't
support mixed content at all. Given that this is occurring, there seems
to be a clear conflict in usage. The idea of a reduced core XML that
would exclude many of the SGML-like features has been discussed
previously on this list.
- Dennis
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>I often here folks on XML-DEV talk about the distinction between data-centric vs. document-centric uses of XML yet I've always failed to see how these uses of XML are at loggerheads. This now seems to me to be the typical XML-DEV posturing the advance an agenda.
>
>Does anyone have any concrete differences between such uses of XML that require such divisive terms as "doc vs data people".
>
|
