Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: [OT] Re: Lessons learned from the XML experiment
![Re: [OT] Re: Lessons learned from the XML experiment](/images/get_stylus.gif) Disrespect
and condescension. It is just amazing who much of these have been administered
to you in the last couple of days.
Let me say
a word about those nodes.
The wording
„designed for nodes“ is perhaps unfortunate, as this may not be the case in the
historical sense. However, I am at a loss why one should see anything in XML
but nodes. Seeing nodes we see an amazing, yet hardly understood reality: the
connectivity of information. A single, homogeneous space of information, held
together by the “forces” of document URI and navigation axes. Seeing syntax,
you look at a concrete wall. What a choice.
XML is an
expression, nodes are the value. I think this is the essence of understanding
XML. What people thought 15 years ago when finishing the XML spec is
irrelevant. To dwell on that appears to me pure pedantry. People thought,
once, that the earth is a disk, but we have passed on in the mean time. What
counts is what we understand, not what others say, and even less what others
have said.
In my opinion,
XML is not syntax backed by a data model. It is a data model, augmented by a
syntax. There should be more than one syntax connected to the single, unified
core which is the XDM data model, to be extended as necessary. I think this is
the next generation of “XML” we should think and care about. But instead of
thinking forward and upward, people think backward and downward, and the way
you are now “corrected” and told to mind what people – “authorities” - have
said and done is sadly symptomatic.
Kind
regards,
Hans-Juergen
Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> schrieb am 18:22 Samstag, 16.November 2013: The memories of those who participated in the development at the time is more reliable than your retro-fitted interpretations of texts. There
are multiple people on this list who were there and are not so senile that they are unreliable.
When we made Xml, it was in full knowledge that there was at least four ways to process the xml: as text [a la perl], as event streams [a la omnimark], as functions on graphs of nodes [a la dsssl], and as objects [a la most new languages in the 90s]. (And i believe some involved also had in mind the method of shredding into databases.)
Xml was designed for text, events, nodes, objects: all of the conventional processing methods of the time. But nodes were not special, nor foremost, to my memory. The issue was having a simple top-down parser, not a data model or api.
But i think you are just trolling.
Rick Jelliffe
On 16/11/2013 11:16 PM, "David Sheets" <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> wrote: On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:21 AM, John Cowan <johnwcowan@gmail.com> wrote: 
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
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
|
|||||||||
