Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Yes. That is what the Grove people were going on about. The applicability of it has shown up in the VRML work where after a year of trying to combine two node based tree languages under a common object model, a proposal from Sony is to now split the two encodings (XML and VRML97) into separate languages. The issue is the overhead of the XML metalanguage vs the efficiency of APIs and object models designed tightly for the application language. Groves and grove plans would have allowed both languages to share common property sets while having different object models. The problem will now be that the VRML-only language will move quickly and that the XML language will suffer the implementation overhead of the metalanguage and the organizational overhead of trying to coordinate implementations of the multiple evolving specifications will impact the schedules and resources. Difficult problem. Not abstract or philosophical. Absolutely money. Len Bullard Intergraph Public Safety clbullar@i... http://fly.hiwaay.net/~cbullard/lensongs.ram Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Turner [mailto:jeff@s...] I was just thinking how similar the XML and LDAP data models are. LDAP gives you a tree, where each node can contain data -and- can act as a namespace for other nodes. This corresponds pretty closely to XML (or maybe SML). Has anyone explored the possibility of crossover APIs for accessing all these 'tree-like' data structures in a standardised way?
|
