[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: terra incognita
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > On my way back from XML 2001, I started thinking about the conference > I'd just seen and how exactly I landed in XML. Wandering through a > bunch of different loosely-connected ideas, I started thinking that XML > and markup in general - including and perhaps especially SGML - simply > doesn't fit well with a huge amount of what the rest of computing wants > to believe. > > I'm sure this is obvious to some people but may be worth exploring in a > little more detail for others. > > Labeled and hierarchically structured information seems very useful to > XML folks, and it's pretty simple to work with as XML. Put those > labeled hierarchies into another framework - say, objects or relational > databases - and suddenly what was simple gets complicated very quickly. I must say that nowadays when I hear "object oriented programming" and "XML" in the same sentence I slightly cringe. The first instinct one has, coming from an object oriented background, is to meld the two together. This was my inclination when I was more new to XML (e.g. the XMOP project http://www.openhealth.org/documents/XMOP.htm), but the more I have had time to reflect on things, the less this interests me. > XML seems to encourage a diversity of data structures (even within the > same document) which don't echo the relative conformity of both object > and relational structures. right. limiting oneself, limits oneself. > > The notion that representation is as important as underlying structure, > which XML's syntactic rules make fairly explicit, is deeply alien to the > Platonic view of information that many programmers seem to share. The > notion that lexical structure might be as important as the underlying > information is one that even this community frequently has difficulty > with, but it seems to be at the foundation of XML 1.0. right again. objects tend to treat data as opaque, one tends to access data _through_ an object, not directly as one might access XML. > > I'm not sure that any of this is new or unusual - most of it's probably > obvious to a lot of people. No, I would guess that most people, including many experienced people, have much trouble distinguishing between objects and XML. > > Maybe I've been working in the XML trenches too long, but it seems like > maybe it's time to say "XML is different from the rest of what you've > been working on, and we should take that seriously" rather than > pretending that XML is simply glue for other technologies. This may not > be easy to sell to customers, but it may help us solve their problems. > Well that's why some call XML "post object oriented" (POO) somewhat tongue in cheek, but only somewhat. Jonathan
|
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
|