[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms

• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:05:31 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3C59B86C.DC7C9084@p...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131083303.02814c60@p...> <m37kpym99c.fsf@d...> <3C59B86C.DC7C9084@p...>

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....

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread