[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: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:59:07 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3E630C7D.7080906@t...>
• References: <E18oMGa-0005t3-00@m...><p04330102ba83b5f45841@[192.168.254.4]><02ff01c2e14f$9d880bc0$6401a8c0@tbp1><3E630C7D.7080906@t...>

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.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson, david@m..., http://www.megginson.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative (revised)
• Next by Date: Re: Tree v. Table - A relational XML object model...?
• 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