RE: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type
Hi Len, > > It's a side issue but what relationship is explicit by enclosure? > > IS-A or HAS-A? > > Seems simple enough but this is where this has fallen apart > in the past. > We think it is a simple, easy to recognize relationship and > it turns out what we think we know just ain't so. > > The evidence only supports HAS-A. OK, I don't know. I always thought of it as "I use it any way I see fit", but the mechanism is static. It is the mechanism that yields some interoperability though. It's a hard-wired convention. > > A post-2000 discussion of architectural forms reinforces the > basic dilemma of web technology: it is a system attempting > to be THE systems of systems and I've no knowledge of any > system succeeding at that for > more than one turn of the wheel. Sorry. Are you talking about architectural forms, or the web? > A lot of nonsense can be avoided by > saying "We are only spec'ing this for the web. Full stop." > > And then not nudging or winking that the only system of > concern for others is the web. That is the nonsense that > defeats separation of concerns. Is the proposal for xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type is such a nudge or a wink? _I_ think it's a proposal for a simple hard-wired convention, something analogous to the nesting of elements implying a relationship between whatever those elements are representing. Cheers, Peter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
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