[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On 7/18/05, Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au> wrote:
> > I am having a hard time accepting the case for mixed content, especially
> > based on the arguments I have seen.
>
> One important reason is internationalization.
<snip/>
>
> Similar annotations are also used by Taiwanese with the bopomofo
> syllabary used for teaching children and with rare ideographs.
I think the whole concept of annotations is a pretty good general use
case for mixed content. As we see pushes into Aspect oriented
programming (and EJB 3 etc.) the code side of the world is going to
become comfortable with annotated objects. It won't be long before
someone believes there's a need for the object metadata to start to
travel with the data metadata if people continue to try and life cycle
objects through XML serialization processes. Yes, you can try and
constrain the places where the annotations are added in the object
models, but if you have the flexibility of mixed content you've got a
much more flexible annotation system. The one thing that might help
here is to use a separate name spaces for the annotations...
<snip/>
>
> Obviously, this can freak out RDBMS people. But why should East Asians
> settle for text in databases being less comprehensible than text in
> free text, in ways that alphabetic scripts are not?
Coming from the RDBMS side of the world (well more than the doc. side
anyway) I don't see a problem here. Obviously your DB models get
normalized along additional dimensions, but that's business as usual.
If you don't have good normalization on the DB side, then yes, you'll
see problems, but that's true anytime anyone adds requirements to a
poorly designed database.
--
Peter Hunsberger
|
