Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Mike Champion wrote: > I think, however, that the reason we are in this mess is there is a "heritage" in > SGML, carried over in SAX, and now in LMNL, that markup really is Just Syntax, > and data models are something for the application to define. That's not a > problem per se -- obviously lots of people get real work done in that paradigm -- > just that it doesn't fit into the world of Dynamic HTML scripters, generic XML > authoring tools, generic XML transformation languages, generic XML DBMS systems, > etc. A DBMS has to take a stand on whether entities are expanded or undexpanded > before indexing; it has to decide whether to preserve CDATA sections and > comments, etc. So, I can agree that "if people had defined the model before > delivering > the syntax" then WE (the generic data model-oriented subculture) wouldn't be in > this mess, but then the "it's just syntax" people wouldn't have come along on the > XML parade. And 'XML' would have forked with every new model that enjoyed a moment of fashion (cf. SOAP); interoperability and extensibility--still the cornerstones of the XML sales pitch--would have fallen to squabbling sectarian liturgies; and every new model would have spawned a 'serialization syntax' with its own demands for tightly-fitted support from the network infrastructure. And in the next iteration, a simplified syntax would be proposed as a new basis of interoperability and extensibility . . . Respectfully, Walter Perry
|
