Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: reaching humans (was Re: Extract A Subset of a
 "Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > > james.anderson@s... (james anderson) writes: > ... > > > >but you would agree to the advantage of "<ol>" over ".TB 4", to go > >back thirty years (http://www.sgmlsource.com/history/AnnexA.htm), > > The advantage there isn't in the universality - it's in the declarative > approach over the procedural, as that annex makes clear. it also does not suggest that one should encode <tb level="4" form="ol"> > > >and admit the advantages of CSS over the HTML 1.0 rendering model? the > >issuses are the same. > > The CSS model is no more or less 'universal' in scope than the HTML 1.0 > model. wouldn't the interpretation model which binds the presentation properties to the document components late, and infers them from a wide range of locational and attributive criteria, rather than statically associating those properties with the gi be the more universal of the two? > ... > > >> I guess you're not fond of architectural forms either? > > > >i don't understand how anything i wrote would imply that. > > Well, on the one hand you seem to consider the DTD part of the > document, which is good, given that AFs typically depend on fixed > attributes. as i recall, the objection, that the dtd is inherently optional, came from someone else. > > On the other hand, you seem to want to use the primary > identifier AS THE ELEMENT NAME, which seems counter to AF practice, > where localization of element names is generally welcome. To take the > original example, you appear to dislike: i made no general assertion. i am not asking here about how to process a legacy document which i am postfacto annotating, and i am not asking about how to deal with a document which i get from some fly-by-night in a back alley. the question is about a document form recommended by a standards organization which purports to codify terms which identify "what one is *really* talking about". > > >> <ProductPartIdentifier > >> UID="9_5.8">123-456-789</ProductPartIdentifier> > > In this case, the UID tells you what ProductPartIdentifer "really" is, > and could be useful grist for an AF processor while still keeping the > human-readable name around. > > You seem to prefer: > > <!DOCTYPE SOME_UDEF SYSTEM "data:,<!ELEMENT UDEF_9_5_8 (#PCDATA) >" [ > > <!ATTLIST UDEF_9_5_8 MIL-STD-2549 #FIXED "Part Product Identifier"> > > ]> > > <UDEF_9_5_8>123-456-789</UDEF_9_5_8> > > > >or just > > > > <UDEF_9_5_8>123-456-789</UDEF_9_5_8> in the particular context of my question, yes, i am surprised that the document architecture would preclude an encoding directly in the primary terms. i am surprised that the architecture would stipulate that each recipient must reformulate the document from the sender's "local" terms. i am also surprised that the document architecture would permit a situation where, "twenty years from now", then legacy documents yield the then equivalent of a 404 when one tries to find out what the "local" terms mean. hey, forget "twenty years from now". i am ever more amazed at how easy it is to point my browser-of-choice at documents, in which, even though it happily renders them completely perfectly correctly, i have no idea where the words start and stop. what was that term which popped up earlier for, among other things "disposed to go counter to what is required"? ... 
|
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
|
|||||||||
