[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone

• To: 'Michael Fitzgerald' <mike@w...>, 'Jeff Lowery' <jlowery@s...>
• Subject: RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:23:05 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Thanks Michael.  This seems to be James' summary:

"The problem of associating a schema with a document is really just a special case of the problem of associating processing with a document. What is needed is a solution that can specify a series of processes to be applied to a document."

The DTD isn't bad per se.  It is for those who really do want to assert their intent 
and lock it to the message.  The problem is if there is no other way to do that, and 
then, the extra requirement which James is proposing but isn't always needed (again, 
it would be convenient), which is to specify a process series.  He plainly points out 
the inadequacy of the DOCTYPE if it can't be used to get the series.  We used to 
put NOTATIONs on attributes but one per element type.

Series of processes?  That sounds like arch forms and/or PIs if one doesn't want to Java.  

"Look at the signpost up ahead.  Next stop, The Reinvent Zone."  

We gotta stop doing that sometime if we expect XML to survive 
the coming counter-revolution (bored minds, a big net, cheap 
software, the irresistable generational urge to tell your 
parents they are ugly know nothings).

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Fitzgerald [mailto:mike@w...]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>For schemas, nyet.  But for the Schema Definition
>language itself, da.  I don't know what RELAX NG
>is using for this. Anyone?

Here is a good explanation of what RELAX NG is /not/ doing about associating
schemas with documents and why:

http://thaiopensource.com/relaxng/design.html#section:17

It is from James Clark's paper "The Design of RELAX NG."

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: "Michael Fitzgerald" <mike@w...>
  • RE: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
  • Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by Date: Re: XML-RPC question
• Previous by thread: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by thread: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread