Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Thursday 31 January 2002 04:34 pm, Paul Prescod wrote: > <>Hello world <>Isn't this</> nice</> > > After all, attributes are optional! Nobody forces a vocabulary to > use attributes. In most systems, you have required and optional attributes. If you said something along the lines of: An element is a set of attributes. One of the attributes is the gi. This is required. It's pretty clear (replace attributes with "named data members" or "fields" and it still read right). > The model I'm describing is radically different than XML or SGML, Sounds kind of like groves... > The whole XML world is organized around the idea that the GI is the > *type name*. The name is not the same as the thing. I think the whole idea that gi == type to be one of the biggest peices of misinformation around. We had this discussion in SML-dev a long time ago....
|
