- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 17:17:44 -0400
- To: Dave Hollander <dmh@hpsgml.fc.hp.com>
- CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Dave Hollander wrote: > > > Paul Prescod wrote: > > ... But the more I think about it the less I care > > about those other applications. ... > > I care because I would like to see client software develop that can do > more with data/documents than they do now. If there is an acceptable XML > solution to the database representation question, then it is more likely > that XML clients will develop that support both data types and provide > a end user more options in managing the view of the data. If SoftQuad or Arbortext wants to extend their respective products to handle relational database information they can trivially add a parser for comma delimited data. That data can reside in the XML document as a notation. Changing the XML syntax to handle this eventually just spreads the work to everyone, including the many people who do not care about relational-style data. Those that want to work with database files should embed comma-delimited parsers just as those that want to work with JPEGs must embed JPEG parsers. How far do we go in supporting non-"text document" datatypes? The same goes for those who want instance syntax for DTDs. I can work with DTDs as groves in any SGML system that permits that. It doesn't matter what the syntax (notation) was. It only matters what the internal representation is. Therefore we should let the notations of different data types evolve independently. Paul Prescod
Received on Monday, 19 May 1997 17:27:12 UTC