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

RE: linking, 80/20

• To: 'Didier PH Martin' <martind@n...>
• Subject: RE: linking, 80/20
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:56:03 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

To parse it for well-formedness, no.  To do anything
past that, yes.  It will be in the documentation.  As 
Jonathan said, progress is made in the semantic world 
by having a precise formal kind of documentation for 
the namespace.   Umm... from genCoding to Document 
Type Definitions.  We seem to be deja re-viewing.

Choose:

NOTATION - tell me where the processor for this 
element is (inline)

MIME - give me a name for finding a processor for 
this document is (objects are ortho-docs)

namespace - tell me where to find the instructions 
for building a processor for this guy is, or for 
finding the directions to where the processor for 
this guy is, or where the processor is and 
I can figure out the scope of this guy if you 
did it all correctly

SGML just conflated well-formedness and validity. 
Otherwise, XML works the same way as SGML.  Both 
depend on external documents ultimately.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Didier PH Martin [mailto:martind@n...]

We can reasonably conclude that the basic rule differentiating
XML from SGML is that *no external document* is needed to process an XML
document.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: linking, 80/20
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • RE: linking, 80/20
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: linking, 80/20
• Next by Date: Re: linking, 80/20
• Previous by thread: RE: linking, 80/20
• Next by thread: RE: linking, 80/20
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread