[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Will the addition of XML data types to relational databases help this
problem, at least for data-centric schemas? It's a bit of an force-fit,
but it seems that mixed content could be mapped to and accessed from an
XML column when the meaning of that content is a single word, even an
annotated one.
This solution won't work for data binding until programming languages
can handle XML data as a first-order type.
-- Ron
Rick Jelliffe 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.
>
> Japanese, in particular, has too many homophones and variant readings
> to make either syllabically-spelled words or ideographically-written
> characters completely satisfactory. The common "writing-on-the-hand-
> when-ralking" behaviour that strikes foreigners in Japan is evidence
> of this.
>
> To overcome this, Japanese have adopted a system of annotated writing,
> which we can call Ruby (after the 4? point characters.) These allow
> ideagraphs (whose meaning may be readable but pronunciation unclear)
> to be coupled with their phonetic spelling. Or to allow contractions
> to be spelled out, or even little translations of unusual foreign words
> or names to be given in the text.
>
> Similar annotations are also used by Taiwanese with the bopomofo
> syllabary used for teaching children and with rare ideographs.
>
> One of the promises of XML over 3rd normal form data is therefore
> that mixed content provides a way for Japanese people (etc) to use their
> traditional Japanese solution (ruby annotations) and overcome the
> alphabet-centricism of RBDBS and third normal form.
>
> Some internationalization people even go as far as saying that *all*
> text in a schema intended for international use should be mixed
> content. I.e. that XML's string type should be the exception, to be
> used only when the pattern facet is used to disallow Han ideagraphs.
>
> 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?
>
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
>
|
