• To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: "Aaron Skonnard" <aarons@d...>
• Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:40:15 -0600
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <r01050300-1015-55349A42A57411D693BB0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

> Aaron Skonnard asks:
> > I think I understand what you're saying. What I'm failing to see is
> > how this simplifies anything from the coder's perspective if it
> > doesn't impact the way attributes are reflected in the APIs (as Tim
> > Bray noted). Developers still have to know your rule when writing
the
> > code. How would it be any less confusing than it is now?

...
Simon:
> Also, for future reference, monasticxml.org isn't particularly
> interested in the "coder's perspective".  It's squarely and very
> deliberately focused on markup works, not what's easiest for 
> programmers from other perspectives.

But since you can have to implement your rule at the application level
(as you admitted), doesn't that imply code?

-aaron
http://staff.develop.com/aarons

• Follow-Ups:
  • Markup perspective not code (wasRE: Re: URIs, concrete)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by Date: Re: Use of "ANY"
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: Markup perspective not code (wasRE: Re: URIs, concrete)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread