Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:09, Sean McGrath wrote: > [Len Bullard] > > >What would be interesting would be a comparison of Common XML and XML-SW > >to determine what features two groups considered essential and how they > > differ. > > >You say the essential subset is: > > 2.2 Elements > > 2.3 Attributes > > 2.4 Namespaces > > 2.5 Textual Content and now revise that to unbundle the namespaces > >so elements, attributes, text are core. Given there are those who > >say attributes are a botch, an even more conservative position is > >elements, text and if we go more minimal than that, we are back to CSV. > > No. CSV goes too far because you loose the very essence of what gives > XML its modelling power - named nodes in a directed acyclic graph. It's not a DAG; you can't share subtrees. It's a tree! > > Sean > ABS -- A city is like a large, complex, rabbit - ARP
|
