Year: 2009

July 14

Just saw in my mailbox that some of my mails were, incorrectly, marked as spam. The content of some of those lead me to discussions about HTML5 and XHTML 2. See the thread here called: XHTML 2 Working Group won’t be renewed?, that started with the remark “I was very surprised by this announcement: http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item119“.

Most of the discussions sound very familiar. Its all about design, distributed development and integration. Things were are used to in our relational database environments and multitier environments.

And, as you saw reflected in the title, I really liked this one:

The problem that XHTML 2.0 faced (and any XHTML adoption for that matter) is that you’re still dealing with the Coding Granny Argument, something that is used extensively by the HTML purist crowd who frankly do NOT want to see XML adopted as a lingua franca, especially for expressing HTML.

Most of you have seen the argument, of course. It runs along the lines of “HTML has to be accessible to non-programmers. My grandmother should be able to write HTML code, even if its ill-formed, and have the browser magically “know” what was the intent of such code, otherwise there will be no adoption of HTML.

In practice, this argument is specious in the extreme.  The eponymous coding granny is far more likely  to be writing in a blog engine or wiki in which the input of content is almost certainly going to be filtered into a final form for storage, they will likely end up using perhaps two tags, <i> and <b>, and may even by using a WYSIWYG editor that will let her incorporate code programatically. It is not, in fact, this user that the argument is intended to protect, but rather the coder with bad programming habits.

and a bit further on

July 13

Today I discovered a web page that has some cool whitepapers and thesis of Mr. Martin Necasky. Besides the work he is doing regarding conceptual modeling for XML, he also wrote a book about this topic called “Conceptual Modeling for XML” in which he, among others, discusses his own conceptual model for XML called XSEM that extends the Entity-Relationship model, he and Ms Irena Mlynkova, wrote a 13 page brief discussion on “The Current Support of XML by the ‘Big Three'” (March 2009 – Oracle 11g, IBM DB2 9, and Microsoft SQL Server 2008).

Some remarks (about Oracle only of course) on this brave attempt (no seriously you can read that it isn’t copy paste work – so a lot of work in testing was probably involved in putting this to paper)…

July 13

Just here as a small side note, some steps to do a XMLDB clean installation without other more unnecessary functionality. Depending on using the Protocol Server or not, also take into account database parameter settings like SHARED_SERVERS (eg. value=5), JAVA_POOL (XQuery and other support), PGA_AGGREGATED_TARGET (DOM validation), SGA_TARGET or MEMORY_TARGET, LARGE_POOL (shared server). My advise would be to not use automatic memory wizards while using XML DB. Although I don’t have a good example anymore at hand, I have seen no or to late response of the database while working with statements that needed a lot of DOM validation in memory. If possible use unicode characterset for your database, AL32UTF8, to avoid future issues within your environment regarding NLS conversion issues.