Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Agree. My first inkling that this was going off track was the incessant beating on DTDs. One reputable and experienced contributor objected and said, "I thought we were doing DTDs++" and instead, it became "OOP--" with some overbuilt bits for RDBs, yet DTDs had been quite serviceable for some years to the majority of markup designs. On the other hand, I did call for it being used until we had a better option. We have one now: RelaxNG, but as it usually happens, we also now have legacy. It would have been a good idea to note up front that there are multiple kinds of databases and they are not united by a common schema language, and that forcing one to do that would be an unnatural act. In markup design, it is usually a bad idea to attempt to smooth over organic irregularities. That is why mixed models are provided despite their theoretical inelegance. XML succeeded initially by removing features some thought not useful for the majority of applications, but the minority continues to exist. Designers have to make the tradeoffs and that is always a political process. No free lunch. Any size that fits all is always uglier than any thing to be fit. len From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin.berjon@e...] There's probably more, but that's all I'm thinking of right now. I think it's an interesting experience to do. But then I guess I should just quit whining and get a job that doesn't require me to deal with that specific gorgon (so long as we can keep it from polluting other specs at random) :)
|
