OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] After XQuery, are we done?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • To: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
  • Subject: RE: [xml-dev] After XQuery, are we done?
  • From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@STJUDE.ORG>
  • Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:28:56 -0500
  • Thread-index: AcS3oOK+/AzGxBMqS3m72+eyJw2wrQAqXGGQAASHbJA=
  • Thread-topic: [xml-dev] After XQuery, are we done?

Michael Kay <michael.h.kay@ntlworld.com> writes:
> > you can put down "XML Linking."
> No thankyou.
> Hyperlinks belong in the user interface space, XML should
> represent information independently of the user interface. It 
> was always architecturally wrong to do hyperlinking at the 
> XML level and the attempt should not be repeated.
> "Modelling relationships in XML" - that would be different.

Let me play dumb for a moment (no snide comments please). Given that:

		<b idref="1"/>
	<c id="1"/>

implies all kinds of relationships between {a,b,c} (even more so if you
define a schema for it), can you expand on your request?  What do you
need that XML doesn't already have?  Are you really asking for a way to
model inter-document (data instance) relationships? Or perhaps an XML
meta-modeling standard of sorts?  In either case, I end up recursing
back to base XML and wondering what else do you need?  Is this really a
request for a better schema language?


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS