Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tim, Tim Bray wrote: > Michael Kay wrote: > >> The problem is that it should have an underlying model, but it hasn't: > > > I couldn't disagree more. Defining the syntax without the underlying > data model *maximizes* interoperability because it reduces the number > of shared assumptions. The notion that two organizations will share > the data model for a purchase order or a bill of materials is just > silly, but they can often deal with each others' serialized output. > The evidence in the field is overwhelmingly on my side. > > XML's lack of a data model is a deliberate, careful design decision, > and the evidence of recent years is that it was correct. I obviously disagree but was wondering if there is a record of this "deliberate, careful design decision" in canonical or non-canonical documentation about the drafting of XML? (If enforced nesting of elements is not a defacto data model I am not sure what definition is being used for data model. Not using the words "data model" does not make it any less a data model.) Patrick -- Patrick Durusau Director of Research and Development Society of Biblical Literature pdurusau@e...
|
