|
For example, what does the following mean? doc("countries.xml")/countries/../.. In the spirit of "The Information Space" that would be "The Information Space" which is not a node(). ---------------------------------------- David A. Lee From: Chris Maloney [mailto:voldrani@gmail.com]
And, this quote, "Third, resource boundaries do not impose a resistance to navigation" is not really true, right? They don't impose a resistance
to navigation downward, but do to navigation upward. For example, what does the following mean? doc("countries.xml")/countries/../..
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote: On 13 Aug 2013, at 23:18, Costello, Roger L. wrote:
Third, resource boundaries do not impose a resistance to navigation: the effort to enter a different document is not greater than the effort
to move within the same document. I've always thought it a weakness of the XML model that resource boundaries were visible at all. In your example, the calls on doc() to cross resource boundaries are explicit. When you're designing an XML database, deciding what information to put in one document can be a major headache (e.g. if you're managing hotel bookings, how should hotel bookings be grouped into documents?) I've
always felt it shouldn't matter: there should be a single data hierarchy in which the resource boundaries are totally invisible. I'm sure that's achievable, but the web architecture doesn't encourage it. For example, intra-document linking is handled quite differently from cross-document linking; most schema languages can only validate one
document at a time, not a collection of related documents. Michael Kay Saxonica |