> >>>Not entirely. It doesn't tell you anything about physical storage,
> >>>it does tell you about what should be stored (namely: "true"
> >>>values).
> >>
> >>...from the point of view of the relational model. Do you want to
> >>claim that the true values in relational model are the only true
> >>values that can exist?
> cut
> > Don't take me wrong -- I find XML useful for all sorts of things.
> >
> > But not for persistent largish data storage systems.
> I agree there is no data model in xml (it's a document centric language )
>
> The design goals for XML are:
> XML shall be straightforwardly usable over the
> Internet.
> XML shall support a wide variety of applications.
> XML shall be compatible with SGML.
> It shall be easy to write programs which process XML
> documents.
> The number of optional features in XML is to be kept to the
> absolute minimum, ideally zero.
> XML documents should be human-legible and reasonably
> clear.
> The XML design should be prepared quickly.
> The design of XML shall be formal and concise.
> XML documents shall be easy to create.
> Terseness in XML markup is of minimal importance.

With this, I can agree :-)

Pitty documents become so large easily. It's really a "human"
thing...Machines don't give a rats ass about format and can
as easily (or even easier) process CSV or real standard formats
like EDI.

With regards,

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com