Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Principles of XML design
 ERH wrote > Does this same SGML spec place any other requirements on SGML and by > extension XML processors? In particular does it mandate anything that an > SGML processor is expected to return to client applications? Do any of > the SGML gurus on the list happen to know that? The SGML spec is formally interested neither in generators nor receivers. It just says that when you see an X in a document in a certain context, that it is a Y: how to parse a document. A validator only needs to return boolean true or false to its application at an extreme. Nontheless, the fundamental "infoset" equation in ISO 8879 is Text = Data + Markup. That is the big divide: for example, significant whitespace is data, insignificant whitespace is markup. In a sense, markup is only ordered because the underlying data is ordered. Are PIs and comments after the root element closes ordered or unordered? ISO 8879 doesn't say, IIRC. It is up to the community to figure out what their needs are, and if a concensus or controversy arises, deal with it and get the standard improved. Couple this, though, with the unremarkable committee assumptions that people are not mad, that people use markup languages to do markup, that newbies will latch onto old-timers, that people will mobilize and co-ordinate on important issues and get clarifications/enhancements/simplifications/extra layers/profiles, etc. made as and when they are needed. I.e that standards come from and create communities. These communities are valuable resources not conspiracies. A standards committee simply does not need to concern itself with issues like "What would a Martian make of this standard?" no matter how much this undoubtedly makes life difficult for to Martians. I think there is a Catholic versus Protestant cultural issue here, in analogy: or, at least, "Tradition" versus "Scriptures". People would love a standard to be Holy Writ. But in fact most workable standards come out of some user community and are riddled with simplifying assumptions that certain questions do not need answering because they are dumb. When someone comes from another computing culture, often they ask dumb questions and are given the unsatisfactory answer "because" back. That is not the way people think about standards, but certainly from the ISO POV a standard is explicitly all about "agreement" not about "imposition" or "adoption". Cheers Rick Jelliffe 
|
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
|
|||||||||
