Re: Database design

"x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote:

>"Roy Hann" <specially_at_processed.almost.meat> wrote in message
>news:3--dnYnbkrrCfmTenZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d_at_pipex.net...
>> "x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote in message news:dtcjfn$f87$1_at_nntp.aioe.org...

>Well, the slippery part is not that amusing after a while.

>> I am more inclined to read it as just the usual witless gaff of noticing
>> that the bounding box of a printed representation of a table has length
>> width and leaping to the conclusion that a table is therefore
>> two-dimensional; planar: flat.

Then I certainly stand to be corrected. I thought the relation was thought to be essentially an unordered set or list of entities, and nothing more. It exists by itself without any connection to what otherwise is known to be related information, until some links are added. And the question was how is that suitable for representing a nested markup language?

>In other thread Mark complained about the slippery aspect of RM if I recall
>it correctly.

What "slippery aspect of RM" do you "recall", exactly? Received on Tue Feb 21 2006 - 01:56:37 CET