Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
Mike Champion wrote: > I think, however, that the reason we are in this mess is there is a "heritage" in > SGML, carried over in SAX, and now in LMNL, that markup really is Just Syntax, > and data models are something for the application to define. That's not a > problem per se -- obviously lots of people get real work done in that paradigm -- > just that it doesn't fit into the world of Dynamic HTML scripters, generic XML > authoring tools, generic XML transformation languages, generic XML DBMS systems, > etc. A DBMS has to take a stand on whether entities are expanded or undexpanded > before indexing; it has to decide whether to preserve CDATA sections and > comments, etc. So, I can agree that "if people had defined the model before > delivering > the syntax" then WE (the generic data model-oriented subculture) wouldn't be in > this mess, but then the "it's just syntax" people wouldn't have come along on the > XML parade. And 'XML' would have forked with every new model that enjoyed a moment of fashion (cf. SOAP); interoperability and extensibility--still the cornerstones of the XML sales pitch--would have fallen to squabbling sectarian liturgies; and every new model would have spawned a 'serialization syntax' with its own demands for tightly-fitted support from the network infrastructure. And in the next iteration, a simplified syntax would be proposed as a new basis of interoperability and extensibility . . . Respectfully, Walter Perry
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format