[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...?

• To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Subject: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 00:04:13 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <02ff01c2e14f$9d880bc0$6401a8c0@tbp1>
• References: <E18oMGa-0005t3-00@m...> <p04330102ba83b5f45841@[192.168.254.4]> <02ff01c2e14f$9d880bc0$6401a8c0@tbp1>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030212

Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> You turn mixed content into non-mixed elements (temporarily, for the
> purposes of storage or table-modeling) by instantiating  an implied _text_
> element for each fragment of PCDATA.  You use an illegal "element" name so
> that you can later distinguish between PCDATA pseudo-elements and real
> elements.  The mixed example becomes, say,
> 
> <doc><~text>This is</~text> <strong><~text>very</~text></strong>
> <~text>important.</~text></doc>

Charles Goldfarb (lead designer of SGML) actually suggested that we do 
this in XML, simply forbid mixed content.  It would have simplified 
processing at the cost of expressive power.  Might have been a good 
trade-off.  Too late now.
-- 
Cheers, Tim Bray
         (ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: getting undisered results , when trying to display japanese characters
• Next by Date: Re: getting undisered results , when trying to display japanese characters
• Previous by thread: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• Next by thread: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread