OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] [OT] Re: [xml-dev] Lessons learned from the XML experiment

On 11/16/13 7:15 AM, David Sheets wrote:
Asking for a source to demonstrate a pure negative is not reasonable.
I was not asking for a demonstration of a negative i.e. "Prove that
XML was not designed for nodes". I was asking for *any* evidence that
the claim did not hold.
"Refute" was the wrong choice of words, then. "Refute" usually asks for a strong demolition, not just a glancing blow. That was why I made the same complaint John just did.

I am really quite surprised that a group of otherwise logical people
Never expect people to be logical. You can barely expect computers to be logical.

have such a hard time understanding that the statements "XML was
designed for nodes" and "XML was designed for elements"
At least you're learning the local language, but...

have nearly zero distinction
To you, perhaps. To folks who regularly bounce back and forth between elements in markup and nodes in data models, they're cousins at best.

with respect to the question of "Can element omission
be used to model optional elements?"
I think you meant to say "Can element omission be used to model optional [data structures]".

"Can", of course. Well, sort of. The interesting question isn't "can", but "is it a good idea?". There's no general answer to that - it all depends on what you want to do and in what context.

The absence of a real answer may also have contributed to the chaos in the conversation.

Simon St.Laurent

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS