The network model might also be fine for messages because they can be
considered as tiny mobile databases too. The strict hierarchical approach has a direct consequence on how efficiently data will be interpreted... Alain COUTHURES <agenceXML> http://www.agencexml.com Michael Kay a écrit : 00b301c87603$96ae6490$6401a8c0@turtle" type="cite">A corollar of having multiple roots in one document is to define a syntax for naming multiple father-children relations. As with a database, each element should be accessible directly (efficient use of '//element') while oriented relations (child to father or father to children) are used to access other elements. With XML 1.0, we have to add id attributes to implement this and there is no specific syntax. XML 2.0 should develop a richer syntax for axes.Sounds like you're reinventing the network (Codasyl) model. It's about time it had a revival. I think you're right - the strict hierarchical approach of XML is fine for messages and for documents, but it really isn't ideal for persistent data. The poor handling of relationships outside the hierarchy has always been a weakness. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/ _______________________________________________________________________ XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS to support XML implementation and development. To minimize spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting. [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php |