Re: XML storing and management

From: Bob Badour <>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:52:11 -0300
Message-ID: <46fc17d0$0$4050$>

Jan Hidders wrote:

> On 27 sep, 19:07, Bob Badour <> wrote:

>>Jan Hidders wrote:
>>>On 27 sep, 16:27, Bob Badour <> wrote:
>>>>Jan Hidders wrote:
>>>>>On 27 sep, 02:19, JOG <> wrote:
>>>>>>Ok, so why is it exactly cdt, despite the inherent flaws of a
>>>>>>hierarchical model such as XML, it has seen such widespread uptake?
>>>>>It's all hype, of course.
>>>>>Btw., what fundamental flaws?
>>>>Well, let's see... How about we start with: "The inability to re-order
>>>>the data without changing meaning and without destroying information." ?
>>>"Hierarchical models such as XML" are not necessarily ordered-only
>>>data models. In fact most proposals for semistructured data models
>>>before XML weren't.
>>>But even in XML this is not a big problem. Whether reordering destroys
>>>information or not depends on your interpretation of the data. If you
>>>send me an XML document and in addition tell me that certain parts
>>>represent sets then I can reorder them without destroying any
>>>information. The fact that XML is an ordered data model only implies
>>>that it *might* destroy informaton, not that it *must*.
>>That's a nit. If one cannot always safely reorder, then one cannot
>>safely reorder.
> I thought we were having a serious discussion, not playing trivial
> word games. My mistake.

I am having a serious discussion. I am not the one picking at nits.

What your position boils down to is: XML is needlessly complex. As a result of the needless complexity, one cannot re-order the data without changing meaning and without destroying information. BUT if we add even more complexity, we can sometimes re-order data. Sometimes.

Pretending the fundamental flaw went away doesn't make it go away. Received on Thu Sep 27 2007 - 22:52:11 CEST

Original text of this message