RE: Subtyping in XML
Ahh yes; the hostile takeover scenario. Understood. Everyone converts at the point of a sword, and then it comes down to pockets that try to keep it alive but depending on their numbers and access to resources, dwindle away or thrive depending on their willingness to take risks. Classic catastrophe scenario. Ok, back to the thread topic. What is the lifecycle value of declaring a type vs just what XML 1.0 enables vs a DTD and so on? It seems to me that type information value varies a lot but that I prefer to have the capability over not having it. The sticking point seems to be that current thinking is to declare a minimum unarguable set of datatypes, then make the rest as private extensions. IOW, some think date types are holy; others, no. Is everyone who wants datatypes comfortable with a minimum set or is the perennial "how to extend this in a standard way" argument being had? I was hoping for pluggable profiles myself. len -----Original Message----- From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...] China wasn't conquered by alphabet users, as Egypt was. By 200 B.C.E., Egyptian was being written in the Coptic script, a version of Greek script with extra letters taken from the latest phase of native Egyptian writing, called "demotic". Although the Manchu who did conquer China in 1620 had alphabetic writing, the prestige of ideographic writing for Chinese and of the Chinese language itself was too great to overcome; as a result, Manchu is basically a dead language today -- there are ethnic Chinese people of Manchu descent, but no actual ethnic Manchus.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format