[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]

  • From: Chris Maloney <voldrani@g...>
  • To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
  • Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:10:48 -0400

And, this quote, "Third, resource boundaries do not impose a resistance to navigation" is not really true, right?  They don't impose a resistance to navigation downward, but do to navigation upward.  For example, what does the following mean?
    doc("countries.xml")/countries/../..


On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Michael Kay <mike@s...> wrote:

On 13 Aug 2013, at 23:18, Costello, Roger L. wrote:

Third, resource boundaries do not impose a resistance to navigation: the effort to enter a different document is not greater than the effort to move within the same document. 

I've always thought it a weakness of the XML model that resource boundaries were visible at all. In your example, the calls on doc() to cross resource boundaries are explicit.

When you're designing an XML database, deciding what information to put in one document can be a major headache (e.g. if you're managing hotel bookings, how should hotel bookings be grouped into documents?) I've always felt it shouldn't matter: there should be a single data hierarchy in which the resource boundaries are totally invisible.

I'm sure that's achievable, but the web architecture doesn't encourage it. For example, intra-document linking is handled quite differently from cross-document linking; most schema languages can only validate one document at a time, not a collection of related documents.

Michael Kay
Saxonica



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member