[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
bry@itnisk.com (bryan) writes:
>>I think you missed the point of the thread completely. "Representing
>>directory structural information as an XML document" isn't what
>>interests me or what we were discussing. Treating XML documents as if
>>they were extensions of filesystems is what interests me.
>
>What? You mean
>1. when you come to a location in the filesystem, xml files conforming
>to a certain type are loaded in that allow you to further describe the
>filesystem
Is that your translation of DSML's "Representing directory structural
information as an XML document"? That's not what I'm looking for, in
any case.
>or as I get the idea from this article is what you mean
>
>2. When you open an xml document in filesystem type X the xml document
>you are viewing gets represented as further steps in the filesystem.
>
>If this were a GUI, all elements would be represented as folders,
>attributes and text nodes as files (let us suppose this is in windows
>and the whole thing is represented as an extension to the shell), then
>processing instructions would be represented over in the left-hand side
>where in a normal folder the "select an item to view its description"
>would be.
Not necessarily represented using folder icons, but treated like a
folder as something you can explore further, yes.
>>http://cda.mrs.umn.edu/~mine0057/fs.pdf
>you might also want to check this:
>
>http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix03/tech/padioleau.html
>
>through http://lambda.weblogs.com/discuss/msgReader$7919#7921
It's interesting, but that's a lot more than I'm looking for. The
attributes I'd want to add to the filesystem are already in the files
themselves, and simple indexing and XPath is far more interesting to me
than inference engines and ensuring that "Truly a file path is a logical
formula."
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
