• To: "'Christian Nentwich'" <christian@s...>
• Subject: RE: 3 XML Design Principles - a rebuttal
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:26:24 -0000
• Cc: "'Roger L. Costello'" <costello@m...>,"'XML Developers List'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <1802221546.20050130111239@s...>
• Thread-index: AcUGvTziN60TnUkXT2qJZ78mZmAsRwAMvilw

> The only time they need their data
> normalised is at the end of a message flow, when it goes into a
> database, but certainly not in XML transit.

I think that's the key point.

Normalization was invented for databases - persistent shared updateable data
stores used by many people in different and unpredictable ways. Database
design and message design have quite different requirements and the optimum
design for one is not generally optimum for the other.

The post that started this thread failed to say what you were trying to
optimize.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• References:
  • Re: 3 XML Design Principles - a rebuttal
    • From: Christian Nentwich <christian@s...>

• Prev by Date: Schema complexity paper - Was 3 XML Design Principles
• Next by Date: RE: 3 XML Design Principles - a rebuttal
• Previous by thread: Re: 3 XML Design Principles - a rebuttal
• Next by thread: RE: 3 XML Design Principles - a rebuttal
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread