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

Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:44:33 +0000
• In-reply-to: <200206141920.PAA04146@m...>
• References: <70fkgu0m52nh776jq2l5tvqkmtrhv7gmi2@4...> <200206141920.PAA04146@m...>

John Cowan <jcowan@r...> wrote:
| Arjun Ray scripsit:

| The practice of the XML community has been overwhelmingly to grant the
| GI fundamental importance: fulminating against this sociological fact
| will not make it go away.

A sociological fact is one thing.  Deeming it immutable and more, worthy
of sanction in the form of a standard to enforce it, is another.

(Also, isn't DSDL in the picture here?  Why then is just the current state
of only the "XML community" decisive?)

|> I suppose I'm also asking for an answer to the issue of "ontology" I 
|> raised earlier: what are attributes for?
| 
| There simply does not exist any generally accepted view of when attributes 
| should be used rather than child elements.  

I note that you dodged the question again. ;-)

| Therefore, it is important for a neutrally usable schema language to 
| support them as identically as possible,

I don't see how neutrality is important, unless it is established policy
to bless what appears to be current practice, no matter how ill-informed.

| excepting the obvious (attributes are unordered and can't contain elements
| or other attributes).

So, if they are different, why the push for identical treatment?  I also
note (in view of a recent thread) that it seems to be a common maturation
experience to grow from attribute-happy to element-wise.  I don't see how
making potentially unwise decisions even easier than they are would make
experience acquired any less painful.   

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Next by Date: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Previous by thread: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Next by thread: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread