Sam Ruby wrote: > > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > > > 1) it should be possible to see it as a single persistent tree of DOM > nodes. > > > > 2) it should contain node-level version information and should provide > > a tagging concept (here, think as a parallel between CVS files and these > > DOM nodes). > > FS alarm bells are going off in my head.
I got the same impression at the end of my post... you know, my RT are just that: random. :) > I'll spare you the details of my > background with versioned databases, but suffice it to say that IMHO the > overhead will kill you. I trust you. > I'd recommend as some "light reading" > http://www.microsoft.com/LEARNING_TOOLS/books/sampchap/5800.asp . If you > read their description of "blue" nodes you can immediately visualize the > indexing that such an arrangement permits. > > Even this IMHO will result in a database only suitable for relatively > coarse grained access. Here, your analogy w/CVS is right on the mark. will read and get back to you. Anyway, what I dream of is an hybrid between a native XML DB (from the query perspective) and a XML-aware CVS (from the versioning/workflow perspective). This is what we need for *serious* publishing solutions. [for "serious" I mean: able to replace the software used by, say, the Washington Post and CNN.com for their publishing needs. Even for paper and TV, not only for web publishing] -- Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
