It is obvious, at least to me, that neither you nor Bill really
understand what I am trying to say (most probably because I am
not communicating properly), and that I most certainly do not
understand what you are trying to say (particularly about suffering
some unspecified burden, as one of the goals of the containership
proposal is precisely to avoid the "holes within cheese" that you
talk about...).
Rather than continue this discussion now I propose that it be
talked about in Montreal while people are speaking face to face,
and if not resolved by then then I can devote some time after
the first week of August.
In the meantime, I'd recommend that personal stones not be
cast.
Chin Chee-Kai wrote:
> Eduardo, I really think your counter-example is out of point
> to say the least.
>
> Bill's container illustated the context under which the
> container's proponent wishes to argue for having containers,
> ie to wrap those with cardinalities 1..n (and then forgetting
> to talk about 0..n again) with a TYPED container. This is
> exactly what Bill tried to illustrate with <SuperfluousContainer>.
>
> Your counter-example illustrates exactly the kind of weakness
> latent within the containers as proposed by the 4 rules.
> In the light of having contextualization, a lot more such
> "holes within cheese" will get generated, leaving implementors
> taking their own interpretation to handle them. The burden
> of handling those complex open issues, unfortunately, would
> not be suffered by the original proponents of these rules.
>
> [R 115] and [R 116] ought to be tarred, compressed and
> piped into /dev/null.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Chin Chee-Kai
> SoftML
> Tel: +65-6820-2979
> Fax: +65-6743-7875
> Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
> http://SoftML.Net/
>
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
>
>
>>>Bill, I think your argument is bogus.
>>>
>>>The alternative to
>>>
>>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>><doc>
>>> <SuperfluousContainer>
>>> <Fruit>Apple</Fruit>
>>> <Fruit>Orange</Fruit>
>>> <Fruit>Banana</Fruit>
>>> </SuperfluousContainer>
>>></doc>
>>>
>>>is not, in real life,
>>>
>>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>><doc>
>>> <Fruit>Apple</Fruit>
>>> <Fruit>Orange</Fruit>
>>> <Fruit>Banana</Fruit>
>>></doc>
>>>
>>>but more probably
>>>
>>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>><doc>
>>> <someelement>foo</somelement>
>>> <Fruit>Apple</Fruit>
>>> <anotherone>bar</anotherone>
>>> <Fruit>Orange</Fruit>
>>> <alongcontainerlikeaddress>
>>> <a>
>>> <b>
>>> <c>foo</c>
>>> </b>
>>> </a>
>>> </alongcontainerlikeaddress>
>>> <Fruit>Banana</Fruit>
>>></doc>
>>>
>>>Also, although I don't have the time or the inclination of checking this out,
>>>(I am on vacation after all) I believe your first stylesheet is way more
>>>complicated than needed for dealing with the container case, I believe it
>>>can be cut in half -- but again, I have not checked this, it's just based
>>>on previous experience with stylesheets.
>>>
>>>Burcham, Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm with Chee-Kai -- I think [R 116] is wrong. (I know it's probably too
>>>>late -- but I'm gonna say my peace anyway :-)
>>>>The two cases I've heard made in favor of it are:
>>>>
>>>>1. container elements foster more readable stylesheets
>>>>2. container elements significantly improve document processing performance
>>>>
>>>>Argument 1 is weak. Forgive me for posting working code, but here is an
>>>>instance document with superfluous containers:
>>>>
>>>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>>><doc>
>>>> <SuperfluousContainer>
>>>> <Fruit>Apple</Fruit>
>>>> <Fruit>Orange</Fruit>
>>>> <Fruit>Banana</Fruit>
>>>> </SuperfluousContainer>
>>>></doc>
>>>>
>>>>And here is a stylesheet to process it:
>>>>
>>>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>>><xsl:transform version="1.0"
>>>>xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
>>>> <xsl:output method="xml" version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"
>>>>indent="yes"/>
>>>> <xsl:template match="doc">
>>>> <xsl:element name="NewDoc">
>>>> <xsl:apply-templates select="current()/*"/>
>>>> </xsl:element>
>>>> </xsl:template>
>>>> <xsl:template match="SuperfluousContainer">
>>>> <BeforeFruit/>
>>>> <xsl:apply-templates select="current()/*"/>
>>>> <AfterFruit/>
>>>> </xsl:template>
>>>> <xsl:template match="Fruit">
>>>> <AFruit>
>>>> <xsl:value-of select="text()"/>
>>>> </AFruit>
>>>> </xsl:template>
>>>></xsl:transform>
>>>>
>>>>And here is the output:
>>>>
>>>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>>><NewDoc>
>>>> <BeforeFruit/>
>>>> <AFruit>Apple</AFruit>
>>>> <AFruit>Orange</AFruit>
>>>> <AFruit>Banana</AFruit>
>>>> <AfterFruit/>
>>>></NewDoc>
>>>>
>>>>The example injects an element before the first fruit and after the last
>>>>one. That's the example we've been discussing for a couple years as being
>>>>the bugaboo here.
>>>>
>>>>And here is an analogous source instance doc -- this time with no
>>>>superfluous containers:
>>>>
>>>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>>><doc>
>>>> <Fruit>Apple</Fruit>
>>>> <Fruit>Orange</Fruit>
>>>> <Fruit>Banana</Fruit>
>>>></doc>
>>>>
>>>>And here is a different stylesheet to process this one:
>>>>
>>>><?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>>>><xsl:transform version="1.0"
>>>>xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform">
>>>> <xsl:output method="xml" version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"
>>>>indent="yes"/>
>>>> <xsl:template match="doc">
>>>> <xsl:element name="NewDoc">
>>>> <xsl:apply-templates select="current()/*"/>
>>>> </xsl:element>
>>>> </xsl:template>
>>>> <xsl:template match="Fruit">
>>>> <xsl:if test="position() = 1">
>>>> <BeforeFruit/>
>>>> </xsl:if>
>>>> <AFruit>
>>>> <xsl:value-of select="text()"/>
>>>> </AFruit>
>>>> <xsl:if test="position() = last()">
>>>> <AfterFruit/>
>>>> </xsl:if>
>>>> </xsl:template>
>>>></xsl:transform>
>>>>
>>>>Comparing the two stylesheets I note that the one for superfluous containers
>>>>is 19 lines and the one for repeating elements (with no superfluous
>>>>containers) is 20 lines. That's only one line of code difference. And I
>>>>don't think the second stylesheet is any less readable than the first.
>>>>
>>>>If I look at the two source documents, and extrapolate to larger documents
>>>>with more nesting I can say with certainty that superfluous containers make
>>>>for larger documents and IMHO are a bit harder for humans to read -- do to
>>>>the increase in indentation necessitated by the deeper hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>>As for point 2 (processing performance), that's just Voodoo Computer
>>>>Science. So, which XML processing tools are we using for comparison? Which
>>>>versions of those tools? What is the use-case/scenario/algorithm? How big
>>>>is the document? Worst-case, if you tell me that the document is HUGE then
>>>>I'll tell you a) the Bolivian rug-weaver using Perl as the processing tool
>>>>isn't gonna see the HUGE document and b) the company (Wal*Mart) that sees
>>>>the HUGE document can darn-well write a transform on the incoming document
>>>>(or four or five transforms) that make it more amenable to efficient
>>>>processing.
>>>>
>>>>But you know what -- I still haven't seen any real _evidence_ that
>>>>superfluous containers provide any processing performance advantage in the
>>>>first place. It's more likely they hurt performance since they _definitely_
>>>>make documents larger!
>>>>
>>>>So by my count, it's:
>>>>
>>>>Superfluous containers: they make documents bigger (inflicting a processing
>>>>burden) and harder for humans to read
>>>>Repeated elements (no superfluous containers): they make documents smaller
>>>>and easier for humans to read, and necessitate a tiny bit more XSLT code in
>>>>some situations.
>>>>
>>>>Down with [R 116]!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bill Burcham
>>>>Sr. Software Architect, Integration Software Development
>>>>Sterling Commerce, Inc.
>>>>469.524.2164
>>>>bill_burcham@stercomm.com
>>>>
>>>>