[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
We were told that the average web guy wasn't very bright and was very desperate. Charles was being kind. I was hoping to do away with parameter entities up front but was told HTML made too much use of them. The not-to-be-violated requirement of SGML On The Web was HTML. It not being a very relational-like language, and not much of a tree, what you see is what you got. XML is limited to web stuff. By design. That helps to unlimit the web. len From: David Megginson [mailto:david@m...] Tim Bray writes: > Charles Goldfarb (lead designer of SGML) actually suggested that we do > this in XML, simply forbid mixed content. I'd be pretty suspicious of Charles on this point -- it would have ensured that people kept using SGML for large documentation systems and limited XML to Web stuff. I do believe that it would be useful to have a middle-level data layer (say, "XDL") on top of XML. That layer could enforce both restrictions (no mixed content) and more abstract, data-specific conventions (such as typing, if it were actually a good idea). Other data oriented specs could be built on top of it.
|
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
|