• To: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: W3C Successes (RE: W3C Culture and Aims )
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:37:22 -0400
• In-reply-to: <014101c1ed27$c495bea0$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020426085858.04625ea8@p...>

At 11:39 PM 4/26/2002 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>From: "Jonathan Robie" <jonathan.robie@d...>
>
> > Suppose you want to develop a native XML database.
>
>But someone who wants to do that presumably wants to support large 
>structures.
>And since XML was only developed to allow documents (presumably small ones)
>to be sent over the Web, there is no reason to expect that XML is suitable.

For the point I was making, substitute "suppose you want to develop any 
interesting new technology that needs to describe typed data in a way that 
can be interchanged on the web and to query such data". Standards make it 
possible for the little guy to innovate. The lack of standards has been a 
concrete problem in the small, innovative companies I have worked for.

I happen to disagree with you about whether XML databases are useful, but I 
would rather discuss that separately.

Jonathan

• References:
  • Re: W3C Successes (RE: W3C Culture and Aims )
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: W3C Successes (RE: W3C Culture and Aims )
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: W3C Successes (RE: W3C Culture and Aims )
• Next by Date: Re: lots of WS reading material
• Previous by thread: Re: W3C Successes (RE: W3C Culture and Aims )
• Next by thread: Re: W3C Successes (RE: W3C Culture and Aims )
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread