Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Champion wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:56:43 -0500, Elliotte Harold
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Of course, everyone will use some data
>>model to process their XML. However, everyone will not use the same data
>>model. Each will choose the data model that meets their needs. Sometimes
>>this data model won't look anything like XML. Often, they'll have
>>several different layers of data models. Claiming that everybody must
>>use the same data model to process XML in order to achieve
>>interoperability is just as silly as claiming everyone must use the same
>>programming language. Data models are a local choice, not a global one.
> Substitute "synatax" for "data model" and all these arguments could be
> used to advocate against standardizing on a one-size-fits-all syntax
> such as XML text :-)
Substitute "grammar productions" for "syntax" and Elliote's argument
> Just as XML is sub-optimal for just about any
> particular use case but good enough for a wide range of them, there is
> something to be said for having a common XML data model that hits some
> sort of 80:20 point for typical use cases.
That would be XPath. Nothing else is remotely as useful.
> Nobody I know is arguing anything remotely resembling "everybody must
> use the same data model to process XML". The point of cleaning up the
> data model mess would be to rectify the ugly mismatches between DOM
> and XInclude, DOM and XPath, etc., i.e. make simple things much
> simpler for novices, not make life harder for the uber-geeks who are
> comfortable with the current situation.
It's not a data models problem. A new/unified/yet-another-pet model for
XML doesn't help me as a programmer.