Title: RE: [xml-dev] Better design:  "flatter is better"  or  "nesting is  better" ?





Roger seems to be classifying application types.  In so far as 

XML can be applied to anything one has the horsepower to support 

(XML is a Syntax.  XML Doesn't Care.) one is tempted to say 

this is not a fruitful line of classification because XML has 

no semantics.


On the other hand, one will eventually have to choose or choose 

to develop a set of adjacent languages with minimal overlap to 

support the *types* of customers with *types* of information.


The rules of thumb for choosing here are much more interesting. 


1.  How to use the rendering and interactive clients.  Flatter 

    is usually better because semantics limit scale and reach.

2.  How to choose the message payloads

3.  How to choose the archival/disk-resident files


Transience is of minimal importance.  One wants to know things 

like that, but it isn't the first consideration.


Though a worn metaphor, these choices determine the membership 

of the ecology of applications, do impact the lifecycle of the 

information, and determine one's bidding partners.  These 

choices are not purely technical.


len




From: Andrzej Jan Taramina [mailto:andrzej@c...]


Rick said:




> Engineering is based on quantifying aspects of particular jobs in

> order to be able replcate success, not lumping things together.

> It is some kind of logical fallacy to apply the 80/20 rule to

> collections of disparate objects.


Hmmm...let me paraphrase that:


"It depends..."