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

Disrespect and condescension. It is just amazing who much of these have been administered to you in the last couple of days.
Let me say a word about those nodes.
The wording „designed for nodes“ is perhaps unfortunate, as this may not be the case in the historical sense. However, I am at a loss why one should see anything in XML but nodes. Seeing nodes we see an amazing, yet hardly understood reality: the connectivity of information. A single, homogeneous space of information, held together by the “forces” of document URI and navigation axes. Seeing syntax, you look at a concrete wall. What a choice.
XML is an expression, nodes are the value. I think this is the essence of understanding XML. What people thought 15 years ago when finishing the XML spec is irrelevant. To dwell on that appears to me pure pedantry. People thought, once, that the earth is a disk, but we have passed on in the mean time. What counts is what we understand, not what others say, and even less what others have said.
In my opinion, XML is not syntax backed by a data model. It is a data model, augmented by a syntax. There should be more than one syntax connected to the single, unified core which is the XDM data model, to be extended as necessary. I think this is the next generation of “XML” we should think and care about. But instead of thinking forward and upward, people think backward and downward, and the way you are now “corrected” and told to mind what people – “authorities” - have said and done is sadly symptomatic.
Kind regards,

Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> schrieb am 18:22 Samstag, 16.November 2013:
The memories of those who participated in the development at the time is more reliable than your retro-fitted interpretations of texts. There are multiple people on this list who were there and are not so senile that they are unreliable.
When we made Xml, it was in full knowledge that there was at least four ways to process the xml: as text [a la perl], as event streams [a la omnimark], as functions on graphs of nodes [a la dsssl], and as objects [a la most new languages in the 90s]. (And i believe some involved also had in mind the method of shredding into databases.)
Xml was designed for text, events, nodes, objects: all of the conventional processing methods of the time. But nodes were not special, nor foremost, to my memory. The issue was having a simple top-down parser, not a data model or api.
But i think you are just trolling.
Rick Jelliffe
On 16/11/2013 11:16 PM, "David Sheets" <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:21 AM, John Cowan <johnwcowan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please direct me to the relevant source that refutes that XML was
>> "designed for nodes".

Hi John,

This is quite far off-topic.

> 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. Once again, I made this claim in response to a
series of absurd claims by Uche (which still go unaddressed) and I
really have no interest in defending it. Simon did a fine job of
supplying some evidence that Uche could have supplied to show that my
statement was overbroad. I am happy making (and defending) the claim
"XML was designed for elements".

> If I claimed that one of the purposes of the American Revolution was to make
> Alexander Hamilton the king of America in the place of George III, could you
> point me to a source that refutes that claim?  I don't think so.  And yet
> the claim is absurd.

I could easily refute the claim that it was *the* purpose just as
Simon easily refuted the claim that "XML was designed for nodes".

I am really quite surprised that a group of otherwise logical people
have such a hard time understanding that the statements "XML was
designed for nodes" and "XML was designed for elements" have nearly
zero distinction with respect to the question of "Can element omission
be used to model optional elements?"

If you'll excuse me, I will now return to basking in the
unsubstantiated disrespect and condescension that seems to be
prevalent in this niche community.


> --
> GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at
> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures


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

[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