• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: Dave Winer <dave@u...>, "XML-Dev (E-mail)" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:45:30 -0800

At 04:38 PM 26/02/01 -0800, Dave Winer wrote:
> I've always felt
>that schema are only needed if you're storing XML content in a relational
>database, but so many applications don't require a relational approach, in
>fact I'd argue that there's nothing about XML that requires a relational db,
>but of course that's what "most people" use, so put the burden on XML, well
>I don't buy it. If it's not needed and it adds complexity let's us an
>approach that doesn't require it.

Well, lots of other people have uses for schemas outside of the
RDBMS arena.  I agree with Megginson that a lot of people expect
more magic & mojo from schemas than they'll deliver in the real
world.  Still, very useful for industrial language designers; and
I think the datatype stuff will actually turn out to be useful
in lots of places.

Having said all that, I agree that the infoset is a tool for
people building the XML family spec infrastructure, not for
ordinary programmers doing real work.  -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: The relentless march of abstraction
    • From: Lynda VanVleet <lyndavv@e...>

• References:
  • The relentless march of abstraction
    • From: Dave Winer <dave@u...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The relentless march of abstraction (fwd)
• Next by Date: RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
• Previous by thread: Re: The relentless march of abstraction
• Next by thread: RE: The relentless march of abstraction
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread