- From: Steve Newcomb <srn@c...>
- To: xml-dev@l...
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 10:29:45 -0400
On 05/07/2016 02:42 AM, Liam R. E. Quin wrote:
> one
> limitation is how to capture (without resorting to ad hoc comments)
> some constraints that are beyond the expressive power of the grammar
> or are contingent in some way. I believe Schematron is still the
> only system to take this seriously.
To some extent XSD does too, by allowing embedded Schematron rules :-)
or other extension mechanisms. DTDs do too, using processing
instructions, although it's terribly underspecified.
And HyTime uses Architectural Forms for HyTime-defined
DTD-constraint-specification extensions, and it also flings the door
wide open for other universes of constraint specifications to
co-exist side-by-side, alongside the HyTime-defined
constraint-specification extensions, or altogether without them.
When we mess with a document that straddles N universes of
constraint-specification, we shouldn't have to first pretend that it
occupies space in only one of them at a time in order to test the
validity of some component in each of them. We should be able to
take a broader view, working in a meta-universe that contains all of
the document's universes. In shuch a meta-space, we can
comprehensively validate each individual component of such a
document, in its living context.
In order to make it possible for SGML documents to occupy space in
multiple universes of discourse simultaneously, HyTime specifies the
use of NOTATION declarations, one per universe.
In order to take multiple universes of NOTATION seriously, I think
we also have to take seriously the notion that entities can identify
universes of discourse. FWIW, HyTime declares both SGML and itself
as NOTATIONs, referencing those ISO standards in the usual
formal-public-identifier fashion.
BTW, you don't have to be ISO to style yourself as an authority
suitable to be cited in a formal public identifier (FPI). Anybody
can do that. No internet domain name is required, but such a thing
could, of course, be used.
It's interesting that, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_Public_Identifier,
W3C has never registered the owner identifier it uses for itself,
"W3C". If that's true, I guess W3C recognizes only its own
notation-universe's authority for owner identification, rejecting
that of the United Nations. I could digress here into discussion of
the relationship of universes of discourse and
human-community-identity, war, and religious fundamentalism, but I
think I'll confine myself to the conjecture that we'd all be a lot
better off if we simply adjusted to the fact that we are not the
center of the one-and-only universe, and we will either adapt to
that fact or die. It's a Copernican revolution that still
lies somewhere in the future, if anywhere at all.
Steve
|
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|
Cart
