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

Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 00:35:22 +0000
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020928195925.049e0cf8@n...>
• References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020927194520.00bcae40@n...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020927194520.00bcae40@n...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020927180018.04398a18@n...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020928072413.05180ec8@n...-techn ologies.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020928074203.022ebec8@n...> <3ipbpu81f8kmkuhikbok08j3mnct4bkgbh@4...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020928195925.049e0cf8@n...>

Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...> wrote:
| At 05:32 PM 9/28/2002 +0000, Arjun Ray wrote:

|> Ah, declare!  Have you heard of notation declarations?

| I am used to notations as a way of identifying an external application,

Like a domain specific validator, perchance?

| but you apparently want to use it in some other way. 

No, exactly the normal way - as hooks to application specific semantics,
usually in the form of programs or libraries which grok the data content
notation.

Heck, the WebSGML TC even provided the DATA declared value to address an
outstanding problem in this regard.  Did you read up on it?

| I don't think that the notion of integer is specific to any particular 
| application or programming language.

SGML and XML don't have it, with good reason and no loss.

| There really are many times that I feel whatever technical discussion 
| occurs on XML-Dev is beside the point. I keep trying to engage in 
| technical discussion anyway. 

Yes, to evade, if not deny the reality of, political issues.  Not only
will you not see the forest for the trees, you will insist on discussing
the forest on no other basis except tree by tree.  I've come to expect
that of you.  I'm even thinking of calling the phenomenon Robie-ism.:-)

| I really do hope that my years of involvement in  developing the 
| standards that many of you use

Oh brother.  Violins, please.

• References:
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Next by Date: Re: namespaces in XML 1.1 - namespace names become *IRI* references
• Previous by thread: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Next by thread: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread