[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Internet-Draft: Media Feature - xmlns
Is this thread drifting toward a discussion of how XML infrastructure should evolve to enable component support below the level of the plugin? IOW, if what is needed is processors, in effect, MS behaviors attached through CSS stylesheets work reasonably well. My opinion at this time is that using namespaces to infer or direct behaviors is overkill and more complicated than is needed. Are we our own worst enemy for the keep it simple requirement? len -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] On Wed, 2002-01-23 at 00:53, Mark Baker wrote: > Re Simon's draft, I have a comment about this sentence; > > "While a list of > namespaces cannot tell a recipient application everything about the > use of those namespaces and there interactions in a given document, > it can provide a baseline understanding." > > I don't think it helps with the "understanding" at all, by itself. You > need the document's structure to provide the context necessary for > extracting meaning. Without that context, "all" I think you get is some > idea of what processors you'll need to process that document. That's an > important optimization, but it's not "understanding". I agree, and I'll categorize the use of "understanding" as an unfortunate accident on my part. Given my general hostility to things semantic, it is definitely a slip.
|
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
|