[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: The relentless march of abstraction
At 04:38 PM 26/02/01 -0800, Dave Winer wrote: > I've always felt >that schema are only needed if you're storing XML content in a relational >database, but so many applications don't require a relational approach, in >fact I'd argue that there's nothing about XML that requires a relational db, >but of course that's what "most people" use, so put the burden on XML, well >I don't buy it. If it's not needed and it adds complexity let's us an >approach that doesn't require it. Well, lots of other people have uses for schemas outside of the RDBMS arena. I agree with Megginson that a lot of people expect more magic & mojo from schemas than they'll deliver in the real world. Still, very useful for industrial language designers; and I think the datatype stuff will actually turn out to be useful in lots of places. Having said all that, I agree that the infoset is a tool for people building the XML family spec infrastructure, not for ordinary programmers doing real work. -Tim
|
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
|