Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > Speaking for myself only, I find the notion of "document type" to be a > mistake in itself, an odd relic of programmers' expectations of > tightly-controlled data formats. If you find it more useful to > categorize every acceptable combination of parts from different > namespaces, you're welcome to do so, of course. I think "document type" is much more useful if you don't think of it as being a single root element, but rather a collection of root elements that provide different views into the same set of elements. > Just keep in mind that a few of us find "the bigger problem of > associating meta-data to document types" to be much less interesting and > less useful than "what is this namespace supposed to tell me?" One of the useful things about such meta-data is it provides yet another layer of context into the use of the namespace. Yes, it is interesting to know that XHTML provides human-readable stuff in HTML format, but the enclosing metadata tells you what that human-readable stuff is describing (a part, a restaurant, a bug). I don't think you can say one is more interesting than the other. -- Ron
|
