Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news:qVb_k.2637$yK5.895_at_edtnps82...
> Brian Selzer wrote:
> ...
>> So you're saying that what looks like a rose, smells like a rose--has
>> thorns like a rose--isn't a rose?
>> ...
>
> I'm saying it isn't always a rose (as a number of marriages I've seen
> prove, not to mention artificial roses). I find it suspicious that
> various newsreaders resort to graphical devices such as indentations,
> dotted lines and chevrons to depict a perceived hierarchy. I don't see
> why authors of those programs shouldn't use relations to depict the
> concepts they are enamoured with, such as "threads", message order,
> position and so forth. If the rfc's used relational examples instead of
> dialogues using the very context-sensitive ops such as "next", the specs
> might be tighter and maybe there would fewer discrepancies in the
> implemmentations.
>

 So, the heirarchies that I contend constitute the content of a forum are nothing more than "an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato," right?

> Aside: Some of the web-based interfaces look to me as if their authors are
> stuck in a hierachical rut. Google groups is one of the easier ones to
> use, seems to have a neat and polished display, but I don't use it because
> it doesn't seem to have the ability to simply show me the latest messages,
> regardless of thread. (I hope somebody will point out if I'm wrong about
> that.)
Received on Sat Dec 06 2008 - 05:41:03 CET