Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote: > >... > > 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. How could you on the one hand, require every vocabulary in the world to have a particular attribute and then at the same time say it is nothing special, "just another attribute." If it is not special then why require it? > > The model I'm describing is radically different than XML or SGML, > > Sounds kind of like groves... Grove nodes have one and only one node type. Even Steve hasn't been radical enough to suggest that any grove property should suffice as the node type. > > 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. The GI is the name of the type. Of course a name is not the same as the thing. Depending on how you look at the universe the "real type" is a totally abstract construction or a thing defined in a DTD. Paul Prescod
|
