Re: [xml-dev] [OT] Re: [xml-dev] Lessons learned from the XML experiment

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

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.

Thanks,
--
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/