• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Some thoughts on 'direct access' to XML (long)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:06:06 -0500
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1023-17F4D1CE2AFD11D7AFB80003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>

I wrote:
>I think Sean's got the overall story right, though I'm rather nervous
>about including W3C XML Schema or XQuery in "BOXED XML" - in large part
>because they seem themselves driven by the kinds of practices Sean
>suggests we avoid.

Oh, never mind.  While the later sections seem to take the initial
composition of BOXED XML for granted, the first two include bits like:

>if BOXED XML does not pollute this,

>AS LONG AS BOXED XML does not shove the object-serialization
>world-view down everyone's throats.

I think that takes care of my concerns as far as this excellent piece is
concerned, anyway.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

• References:
  • Re: Some thoughts on 'direct access' to XML (long)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Some thoughts on 'direct access' to XML (long)
• Next by Date: Re: Some thoughts on 'direct access' to XML (long)
• Previous by thread: Re: Some thoughts on 'direct access' to XML (long)
• Next by thread: Re: Some thoughts on 'direct access' to XML (long)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread