• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:34:52 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3BF16F4D.30508@r...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <E163Qf2-0008CL-00@s...> <E163hq5-0006F2-00@s...> <3BF16F4D.30508@r...>

On Tuesday 13 November 2001 02:06 pm, John Cowan wrote:
> Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> > XML itself doesn't do anything with graphs, even with ID/IDREF pairs,
> > beyond simple validation of constraints. As such I have to disagree with
> > your assertion that "Without ID's, XML can only serialize trees" and put
> > it down to FUD.
>
> *in an application-independent way*.  Of course you can define your own
> mechanism, or use XLink.

You can never, ever, serialize a graph in an application-independent way. 
Where did the graph come from in the first place?

XML is data. Data without an application interpreting it is just a sequence 
of bits... and angle brackets don't change that.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: "Evan Lenz" <elenz@x...>

• References:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Caught napping!
• Next by Date: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Previous by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread