• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: canonicalization
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 04 Mar 2002 15:00:35 -0500
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20020304104526.027d51b0@p...>
• References: <3C833AB2.3040807@t...><1015032338.3309.3.camel@l...><p04330103b8a7fd271d04@[192.168.254.4]><1015178176.5268.43.camel@l...><p04330104b8a8106aa395@[192.168.254.4]><1015193078.3350.61.camel@l...><p04330107b8a85bc15730@[192.168.254.4]><1015201142.3309.108.camel@l...><3C82B747.5020609@t...> <20020304025635.C18835@r...><3C833AB2.3040807@t...> <5.1.0.14.2.20020304104526.027d51b0@p...>

On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 13:47, Tim Bray wrote:
> That's precisely what I'm disagreeing with... I'm becoming
> more & more convinced that inclusion and aggregation have so
> much application-specific hair, and the cost of trying to 
> model them generally is so high, that we should just kick
> them out of the syntax and at the level of *interoperability*,
> we should talk in terms of whole fully composed XML documents.

"Fully composed XML documents" is a really nice way to put it.  It seems
by far the lowest-cost approach to interoperability.
 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• References:
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Daniel Veillard <veillard@r...>
  • Re: canonicalization
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Next by Date: Namespaces and URIs (was: A good case for Namespace URIs)
• Previous by thread: Re: canonicalization
• Next by thread: Re: canonicalization
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread