[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: After XQuery, are we done?
Michael Kay <michael.h.kay@n...> writes: > > > you can put down "XML Linking." > > No thankyou. > > Hyperlinks belong in the user interface space, XML should > represent information independently of the user interface. It > was always architecturally wrong to do hyperlinking at the > XML level and the attempt should not be repeated. > > "Modelling relationships in XML" - that would be different. Let me play dumb for a moment (no snide comments please). Given that: <a> <b idref="1"/> </a> <c id="1"/> implies all kinds of relationships between {a,b,c} (even more so if you define a schema for it), can you expand on your request? What do you need that XML doesn't already have? Are you really asking for a way to model inter-document (data instance) relationships? Or perhaps an XML meta-modeling standard of sorts? In either case, I end up recursing back to base XML and wondering what else do you need? Is this really a request for a better schema language?
|
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
|