On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:09, Sean McGrath wrote:
> [Len Bullard]
>
> >What would be interesting would be a comparison of Common XML and XML-SW
> >to determine what features two groups considered essential and how they
>
> differ.
>
> >You say the essential subset is:
> > 2.2 Elements
> > 2.3 Attributes
> > 2.4 Namespaces
> > 2.5 Textual Content and now revise that to unbundle the namespaces
> >so elements, attributes, text are core. Given there are those who
> >say attributes are a botch, an even more conservative position is
> >elements, text and if we go more minimal than that, we are back to CSV.
>
> No. CSV goes too far because you loose the very essence of what gives
> XML its modelling power - named nodes in a directed acyclic graph.
It's not a DAG; you can't share subtrees. It's a tree!
>
> Sean
>
ABS
--
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
- ARP
