• To: "'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:55:20 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

> DOCTYPES are fine for DTDs as long as you accept 
> extensibility in any instance that includes the 
> DOCTYPE definition and/or own the system reference. 
> A PUBLIC id specifies the owner organinization and 
> the system ID tells you where to locate your version 
> of that.  

Well, since I don't use DTDs myself, it may be possible that I'm missing
some subtleties. I get your drift, though. 

> Why doesn't that work?  Are you really 
> looking for someone to make your choices for you?

But I don't want to use DTDs. You can't make me.

> For schemas, nyet.  But for the Schema Definition 
> language itself, da.  I don't know what RELAX NG 
> is using for this. Anyone?
> 
> Levels.  Agreements are usually layered if negotiated. 
> Blind exchanges should not be the way the web works. 

Ummm... not quite with ya there. Certainly, I can ignore or passively store
information I don't understand, for later regurgitation. Not that I do that
on this list.

> 
> And if you plan to send the semantics with the message, 
> Java and PDF are there to serve your every need. :-)

Oh, c'mon. 


> 
> Why is this debate still being held every year?

It makes me wonder why you even bother, Len. :-\

• Prev by Date: XML-RPC question
• Next by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Previous by thread: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by thread: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread