• To: "'XML DEV'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: RE: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 00:35:02 +1000
• References: <61D9HESOTRNJ4PK8642WUSO64S243.3da2e700@MChamp>

From: "Mike Champion" <mc@x...>

> 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.  

I don't think it is so simple.  Many of the SGML people had just been through the
"Property Set" and GROVEs issues: define everything that a parse could 
possible return, then have a syntax by which a system can specify
its required data model, then have your parser generate a very lean
GROVE (infoset) which would contain no fluff and fit into your system.

So the absense of a data model is not only because some people think
markup is just syntax, but also because some people, based on the 
GROVES/Property Set work, that data models were simply
better left to applications and document types.  Not needed by 80/20.

If (following Lou Burnard) a DTD is a theory about a document,
then perhaps a data model is a theory about the markup in a document
set. 

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• References:
  • Re: RE: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Using RDDL as a Distributed Registry Architecture
• Next by Date: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Previous by thread: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Next by thread: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread