Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
Jeni, Jeni Tennison wrote: >Hi Walter, > <snip> > > >I'm just trying to persuade Patrick not to use a syntax that's >similar-enough-to-XML-to-be-confusing as the input to his processes in >the examples that he uses. > In my defense, I am trying to persuade Jeni to not see a data model as a limitation on a particular serialization syntax. What I find confusing is the binding of data model and serialization syntax. It is useful if I want to determine if the syntax in a particular set of data meets the data model but I could well want to read/interpret/use that same syntax for another data model. By allowing the selection/imposition of syntax in a set of data, I can conform it to any data model I desire (subject to the limitations of my processing abilities) and that seems like an advantage to me. If for example, one wanted to say that a document must not contain any markup (in the XML defined sense) that did not meet the well-formedness rule and a particular DTD or schema, that is certainly doable with the JITTs process as it has been outlined. I imagine such cases occurring when one needs to send a file to a person who has not upgraded to a markup processor that divorces data model from serialization syntax. I will try to add some well-formed XML examples today so there will be non-confusing examples of how JITTs applies to standard XML documents. I don't find the examples confusing at all, but then I did not find our paper confusing but bow to the weight of public opinion that it, perhaps, just perhaps, is confusing. ;-) As I said, yesterday and I suppose it bears repeating, JITTs can use standard, valid, well-formed XML documents and syntax for many things. It can also use XML syntax that violates the XML data model but I fail to see why that is confusing? That a serialization syntax is based on a particular data model is fine. But the interpretation of that serialization syntax should not be bound to the data model of its origin. (For those readers with a literary criticism background, this can be roughly compared to adapting reader-response criticism to markup processing. As Stanley Fish would say (adapted): "...what they are searching for [structure of a text] is never not already found." From the conclusion of: "Is There a Text in This Class?") Patrick -- Patrick Durusau Director of Research and Development Society of Biblical Literature pdurusau@e...
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