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

Re: Re: URIs, concrete

• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Re: URIs, concrete
• From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
• Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:47:18 -0400
• Organization: Fiduciary Automation
• References: <20020729191743.KCTL22139.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@rwcrwbc57>

jborden@a... wrote:

> The "meaning" of "bar" might be relative to the meaning of "foo" regardless of namespace qualitifation. Similarly the meaning of "html:class" might be relative to whatever document it finds itself in, and particularly would depend on who and what is assigning meaning to the document and its contents. XML without context is _text_ and has no specific meaning. Of course that is just but one interpretation.

I would say that this particular interpretation is what makes markup markup. Structured text is structured by the conflation of particular markup elements in the context of a particular instance. Attributes do not participate in the delineation of that structure. In the semantic outcome elaborated from processing such structured marked-up text, does the weight of the attribute derive mainly from its position
within that structure, and specifically from the particular element on which it depends, rather than from the namespace in which it might participate. It seems so.

Respectfully,

Walter Perry

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete
    • From: jborden@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: assigning semantics to XML, Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete
• Next by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread