Lists Home |
Date Index |
Agree. My first inkling that this
was going off track was the incessant beating on DTDs. One
reputable and experienced contributor objected and said, "I
thought we were doing DTDs++" and instead, it became "OOP--"
with some overbuilt bits for RDBs, yet DTDs had been quite
serviceable for some years to the majority of markup designs.
On the other hand, I did call for it being used until we
had a better option. We have one now: RelaxNG, but as
it usually happens, we also now have legacy.
It would have been a good idea to note up front that there
are multiple kinds of databases and they are not united by
a common schema language, and that forcing one to do that
would be an unnatural act. In markup design, it is usually
a bad idea to attempt to smooth over organic irregularities.
That is why mixed models are provided despite their theoretical
inelegance. XML succeeded initially by removing features some
thought not useful for the majority of applications, but the
minority continues to exist. Designers have to make the
tradeoffs and that is always a political process. No free lunch.
Any size that fits all is always uglier than any thing to be fit.
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
There's probably more, but that's all I'm thinking of right now. I think
it's an interesting experience to do. But then I guess I should just
quit whining and get a job that doesn't require me to deal with that
specific gorgon (so long as we can keep it from polluting other specs at