Lists Home |
Date Index |
--- "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The XPath data model - for 1.0 at least - was simple
> enough to work, largely
> because it didn't create anything new. While I find
> it frustrating
> because (IMHO) it discards too much, it sort of
> mostly does the job.
Ah, but Grasshopper, it "mostly does the job"
precisely because it discards so much.
> The XPath 1.0 data model is the only one I can take
> seriously as "a
> shared data model that works". It is so small a
> data model - even
> compared to CSS or DOM, never mind OWL/RDF - that I
> have a hard time
> taking its success as any grand claim about the
> value of data models.
I agree. I use it only as a counter-example to the
assertion that syntax is everything, don't need no
stinkin' data models to do interop. Without the
dirt-simple reference data model, everyone has to
wallow in the many useless distinctions that pure
syntax forces one to confront.
> For DOM, I suspect the whole process was a mistake
> that grew and grew.
> It produced some nice results in browsers that cared
> to implement it in
> an HTML context, but beyond that, I suspect it did
> little except retard
> the development of more usable alternatives.
The best is the enemy of the good.
Sheesh, I make myself sick with the epigrams tonight
Someone on xml-dev once took offense at being referred
to as "Grasshopper" IIRC.