• To: 'Joe English' <jenglish@f...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:12:43 -0500

Keep in mind that 'bad normalization' can equal 
'good optimization'.  I seldom see fully-normalized 
databases because the overhead of getting and 
opening tables, creating the view, etc. can be 
prohibitive vs the maintenance of denormalized 
data.  Otherwise, I would agree.  These aren't 
legacy databases.  They are practical ones where 
performance considerations dominate maintenance.

len

From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@f...]

What are the real-world use cases of minOccurs and maxOccurs?
In my experience, occurrence constraints specifying anything 
other than zero, one, or many are almost always an indication 
of a bad design decision somewhere in the system.

(Or maybe that *is* the use case?  To be able to accurately
describe badly normalized legacy RDBMSs and other such things?)

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
  • Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
    • From: ari@c... (K. Ari Krupnikov)

• Prev by Date: Re: analyze svg
• Next by Date: RE: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Previous by thread: Re: analyze svg
• Next by thread: Re: modeling, validating and documenting an xml grammar
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread