RE: Intent of ER-XML

"> it's web technology we're doing so we already knew that ;)"

There's another hidden assumption I missed.
Is XML-EHR  only for "web technology" ?



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin@berjon.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:34 AM
> To: David Carlisle
> Cc: public-xml-er@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Intent of ER-XML
> 
> On Feb 26, 2012, at 22:16 , David Carlisle wrote:
> > I'd say any kind of abstract tree model. Current draft uses the terminology
> of the DOM which isn't my favourite tree model but if we think DOM based
> browsers are a likely user of this spec, then using the terminology of the
> DOM (but saying somewhere any tree model is OK) makes some kind of
> sense to me.
> 
> It's not just about browsers (though that certainly is an important aspect).
> The DOM has the advantage over something abstract like the Infoset that it's
> concrete and therefore directly testable. It's also widely supported (and
> itself tested). We all agree that it wouldn't win any beauty contests, but then
> it's web technology we're doing so we already knew that ;)
> 
> 
> --
> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
> 
> Coming up soon: I'm teaching a W3C online course on Mobile Web Apps
> http://www.w3devcampus.com/writing-great-web-applications-for-mobile/
>

Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 14:46:23 UTC