RE: Subset Data Model

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Sullivan [mailto:dsullivan@danal.comcastbiz.net]
> The api's that are used to read XML can also be used to read uxml. But it
> wouldn't be unusual for an application to use one of those api's to read, say
> uxml, then modify the model the api produces, then serialize the results. I
> don't think there is anything that would guarantee that an xml api that read
> uxml would then serialize to uxml. Is that an issue?
> 
> Dan
> 

I am not at all concerned about serialization (round trip or not).
I am concerned about data integrity and tools use.
Perhaps I am reading more into the "intent" then  is really there (which is why I keep pushing to have the "Why" specified more explicitly).

But one use case I believe is intended is that users can use uXML because they dont want to deal with "The Whole Enchilada" of XML.  OK but what does "Use" mean ?  
One "Use" might mean to transfer a document model from one application to another.
Another "Use" Might be to be able to use the huge stack of XML tools (like XSLT).
Both of these involve (in my mind) that the producer and consumer have a data model in mind and that the other side had the same data model.  Otherwise loss or ambiguity of information occurs.   Concrete example.  Suppose the producer assumed uXML gleefully put colons in attribute names with no xmlns attribute.   But the consumer tried to read this with an XML parser.  Bang.
Ok so "Don't do that" ...  sure.   Don't feed C# into a Java parser either.
What is the full list of "Don't do that" ?  
This (in my mind) means the producer needs to know upfront that the consumers know this is uXML not XML. 
A full list of not only what syntax will crash XML tools but also what data model  differences there are and how uXML documents would be (mis)read in XML processors.  Without this list then uXML is a distinct language and should in no way be old as a subset of XML without big bold signs saying "DO NOT USE WITH XML PROCESSORS - BEWARE DRAGONS MAY BITE".

Atleast that is how I am seeing it right now - that is uXML is a totally distinct language from XML (much as XML is distinct from HTML or SGML) and that expectations of reuse of the XML ecosystem and toolsets are misunderstandings.  Thats fine.
In which case why bother with any XML compatibility at all ?  I would find that more confusing to users then helpful.






-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
dlee@marklogic.com
Phone: +1 650-287-2531
Cell:  +1 812-630-7622
www.marklogic.com

This e-mail and any accompanying attachments are confidential. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail communication by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.

Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 15:57:14 UTC