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

Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms

• To: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Subject: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Marcus Carr <mrc@a...>
• Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 12:56:09 +1100
• Cc: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>, "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...>
• Organization: Allette Systems (Australia) Pty Ltd
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020131083303.02814c60@p...> <m37kpym99c.fsf@d...> <3C59B86C.DC7C9084@p...> <E16WPTh-0001zW-00@s...> <3C59DBBE.5F522D78@p...>

Paul Prescod wrote:

> How could you on the one hand, require every vocabulary in the world to
> have a particular attribute and then at the same time say it is nothing
> special, "just another attribute." If it is not special then why require
> it?

It isn't always required in SGML - this:

   <foo>
   <bar>some text</bar>
   <>and some more</>
   </foo>

is exactly equivalent to:

   <foo>
   <bar>some text</bar>
   <bar>and some more</bar>
   </foo>

This isn't a million miles from something like a #FIXED attribute, where the
value and existence is determined by something not immediately apparent in
the instance. I'm no expert in AF (despite Steve's 2 day seminar in about
'93), yet I don't feel that the idea that the GI is an attribute of an
element requires a great leap. Given that SGML allows a start tag to look
like:

   <foo bar>

if the attlist looks like:

   <!ATTLIST foo fooatt (bar | pub) #IMPLIED>

I can accept how Steve came to his conclusions. That the same arguments
don't fit in the context of XML is interesting but not significant, IMHO.


--
Regards,

Marcus Carr                      email:  mrc@a...
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia)      www:    http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
       - Einstein

• References:
  • RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: bioinformatics, XML
• Next by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread