[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
On 11/16/13 7:15 AM, David Sheets wrote: "Refute" was the wrong choice of words, then. "Refute" usually asks for a strong demolition, not just a glancing blow. That was why I made the same complaint John just did.Asking for a source to demonstrate a pure negative is not reasonable.I was not asking for a demonstration of a negative i.e. "Prove that XML was not designed for nodes". I was asking for *any* evidence that the claim did not hold. Never expect people to be logical. You can barely expect computers to be logical.I am really quite surprised that a group of otherwise logical people have such a hard time understanding that the statements "XML was designed for nodes" and "XML was designed for elements" At least you're learning the local language, but... To you, perhaps. To folks who regularly bounce back and forth between elements in markup and nodes in data models, they're cousins at best.have nearly zero distinction I think you meant to say "Can element omission be used to model optional [data structures]".with respect to the question of "Can element omission be used to model optional elements?" "Can", of course. Well, sort of. The interesting question isn't "can", but "is it a good idea?". There's no general answer to that - it all depends on what you want to do and in what context. The absence of a real answer may also have contributed to the chaos in the conversation. Thanks, -- Simon St.Laurent http://simonstl.com/
[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
|