Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Awesome message Ken. Thanks!
> Actually, a processor is required to produce the end result *as if*
> it had implemented the described behavior. It is not required to
> behave as described in the specification. It is a subtle but
> important distinction
I like it! A specification describes the end results of processing elements, i.e., it's an effects-based description.
> So, I would say that XML vocabularies only describe meaning and not
> behavior.
Shouldn't a specification of an XML vocabulary provide both meaning and effect?
For example, consider this element:
<Author>...</Author>
A specification could provide just the meaning of the <Author> element, perhaps something like this:
Author: a person who writes a novel, poem, essay, etc.
The meaning is nice, but what effect should result from an application processing the <Author> element? That, it seems to me, is vitally important for a specification to provide. Do you agree?
Assertion: an XML vocabulary that has aspirations of ending up in the marketplace must be described by a specification that provides both meaning and effect. Do you agree?
/Roger
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
