[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XML Schemas: the wrong name

• From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...>
• To: steven.harris@t...
• Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:43:54 -0500

[Steven Harris:]
> In particular, what kind of exchanged information doesn't deserve an
> API? What are the benefits of separating the two?

Egad!  I didn't say that exchanged information doesn't deserve an API.
I'm saying a very, very different thing.

I'm saying that, for many kinds of information, attempting to derive
the API from the syntactic structure, or attempting to define the
syntax in terms of the desired API, are bad ideas.  The robustness of
the syntax will suffer, or the usefulness of the API will suffer, or
both, or you will throw up your hands and get disgusted with this
whole XML shtick, because XML is clearly not strong enough to deal
with your problem in a reasonable way.  Bad outcomes, all, and all
completely unnecessary.

In the general case, for any given kind of information to be
interchanged, we need:

* a model for the syntax of the information, *and*

* a model for the properties of the information, once it has been
  understood.

-Steve

--
Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@c...

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

405 Flagler Court
Allen, Texas 75013-2821 USA

"We're not exactly anti-schema, but we're sure pro-DTD."
 -- doctypes.org

• References:
  • Self-installing version of XSV available for WIN32
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • XML Schemas: the wrong name
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: the wrong name
    • From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...>
  • Re: XML Schemas: the wrong name
    • From: "Steven E. Harris" <steven.harris@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Schemas: the wrong name
• Next by Date: RE: simple XPath question
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Schemas: the wrong name
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schemas: the wrong name
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread