RE: data model

Why would there be more than one abstract data model for MicroXML ?
I could see many concrete models, but why different abstract models ?
Am I being future-blind?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
dlee@marklogic.com
Phone: +1 812-482-5224
Cell:  +1 812-630-7622
www.marklogic.com<http://www.marklogic.com/>


From: Stephen D Green [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 9:36 AM
To: Maik Stührenberg
Cc: public-microxml@w3.org
Subject: Re: data model

I guess the conformance clauses can be split into two levels though - so that some can claim parser conformance to everything except the data model (in case there is an alternative data model which becomes popular, etc)
----
Stephen D Green


On 28 September 2012 14:32, Maik Stührenberg <maik.stuehrenberg@uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:maik.stuehrenberg@uni-bielefeld.de>> wrote:
I guess in this case, the spec should be split up into two seperate specs: one for the data model and one for the rest.
However, in my opinion that would harm the overall benefit of MicroXML as it is at the current state: a self-contained short and feasible spec.

Just my 2 cents,

Maik Stührenberg

Stephen D Green schrieb:

Would it be feasible for (say, in future) a version of the spec to
not include the data model? I'm thinking back to the way the
XML included DTD and how DTD became a bit odd to be in the
spec once XML Schema came to the fore.
----
Stephen D Green

--
Dr. Maik Stührenberg
Universität Bielefeld
Fakultät für Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft
Universitätsstraße 25
33615 Bielefeld
Telefon: +49 (0)521/106-2534<tel:%2B49%20%280%29521%2F106-2534>
E-Mail: maik.stuehrenberg@uni-bielefeld.de<mailto:maik.stuehrenberg@uni-bielefeld.de>
http://www.maik-stuehrenberg.de
http://www.xstandoff.net