• To: 'Ed Day' <edday@o...>, Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>, Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Subject: RE: Mixed content in data-binding (Was: Re: Interesting pair of comments
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:40:40 -0500
• Cc: 'Peter Gerstbach' <peter.gerstbach@g...>, 'XML-dev' <xml-dev@l...>

Some years ago during the IADS work, our chief designer said that 
any language (at that time, SGML) that enabled mixed content 
should be eliminated from the universe.  Instead, the follow
on, XML, thrived and won.  While I understand the parser-centric 
data model position, history is not on the side of eliminating 
mixed models.

It's not a design issue; it is a scope of control issue. 
The mixed data model is very common and impossible to 
eliminate unless the designer owns all ends of the pipes. 
This isn't likely given a web distribution.   Even 
in intranets, we see this a lot.  It comes down to 
where in the pipeline the detection of mixed data models 
occurs.

The problem of schema profiles will be that the profiles 
have to be named.  A lot of process rot ensues.

len


From: Ed Day [mailto:eday@o...]

I suppose this is case of "document-centric" vs "data-centric" application
thinking (I am in the latter camp).  It would seem this might be a good
place to start when breaking down schema profiles.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Mixed content in data-binding (Was: Re: Interesting pair of comments
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Mixed content in data-binding (Was: Re: Interesting pair of comments
• Next by Date: Re: Mixed content in data-binding (Was: Re: Interesting pair of comments
• Previous by thread: Re: Mixed content in data-binding (Was: Re: Interesting pair of comments
• Next by thread: Re: Mixed content in data-binding (Was: Re: Interesting pair of comments
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread