[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Caught napping!
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Weinreb [mailto:dlw@e...] > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 5:13 PM > To: rpbourret@r... > Cc: xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: Caught napping! > > Yes, but it also sometimes makes sense to use one when you're living > and breathing XML everywhere already anyway, and it's just easier to > deal with everything as XML. Yup. The whole point of an XML database is *convenience* for those who are immersed in the XML scheme of things; if you're immersed with pure abstract "data" you probably want an RDBMS; if you're immersed in programming objects, you probably want an OODBMS. Most of us are probably immersed in all of the above, and have a job to figure out which is best <grin> > All I mean is that XML documents, being documents, are convenient. > You can read them into Emacs and gaze at them. I could put one > into this very email so easily: > > <book> > <title>Data and Reality</title> > <author>William Kent</author> > </book> A more compelling example, if you don't mind my butting in, would be if you wanted to exchange a list of various books by various authors, publishers, etc. A normalization of this into authors, titles, publishers, etc. tables would be far less intuitive to someone when opened up in emacs (if there were a MIME type for tables!) or displayed in HTML than would a simple hierarchical presentation. We're hard-wired to understand hierarchies, and not hard-wired to do mental joins. More power to the smart people who CAN see four tables and mentally join them into a booklist, but, ahem, good luck selling that UI to Amazon!
|
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
|