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

RE: XML/RDF

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: XML/RDF
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 19:00:18 -0500
• In-reply-to: <5.0.0.25.0.20021104183735.00a1feb0@m...>

bobdc@s... (Bob DuCharme) writes:
>Simon even responded to that original set of guidelines
>(http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200208/msg01293.html), but only
>had a problem with the "Eschew mixed content" one at the time.

"Eschew mixed content" seemed the most ridiculous (and memorable) at the
time, and I'd been having particular annoyances with general failures to
appreciate mixed content at that point.  (Both W3C XML Schema and RELAX
NG seem to treat it as a special case rather than as something quite
normal, though RELAX NG is less extreme in that.)  

Looking at the whole project in more detail and with examples, I find
the whole thing repulsive, at least when taken as an approach to
creating XML generally.  On the other hand, as a human-readable syntax
for RDF, it's far better than anything else I've seen.


-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML/RDF
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • RE: XML/RDF
    • From: Bob DuCharme <bobdc@s...>

• References:
  • RE: XML/RDF
    • From: Bob DuCharme <bobdc@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Character Entities: An XML Core WG View
• Next by Date: RE: XML/RDF
• Previous by thread: RE: XML/RDF
• Next by thread: RE: XML/RDF
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread