[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: After XQuery, are we done?

• To: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:28:56 -0500
• Thread-index: AcS3oOK+/AzGxBMqS3m72+eyJw2wrQAqXGGQAASHbJA=
• Thread-topic: After XQuery, are we done?

Michael Kay <michael.h.kay@n...> writes:
> 
> > you can put down "XML Linking."
> 
> No thankyou.
> 
> Hyperlinks belong in the user interface space, XML should
> represent information independently of the user interface. It 
> was always architecturally wrong to do hyperlinking at the 
> XML level and the attempt should not be repeated.
> 
> "Modelling relationships in XML" - that would be different.

Let me play dumb for a moment (no snide comments please). Given that:

	<a>
		<b idref="1"/>
	</a>
	<c id="1"/>

implies all kinds of relationships between {a,b,c} (even more so if you
define a schema for it), can you expand on your request?  What do you
need that XML doesn't already have?  Are you really asking for a way to
model inter-document (data instance) relationships? Or perhaps an XML
meta-modeling standard of sorts?  In either case, I end up recursing
back to base XML and wondering what else do you need?  Is this really a
request for a better schema language?

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• Next by Date: xml-entity PI
• Previous by thread: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• Next by thread: RE: After XQuery, are we done?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread