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

Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9

• To: aray@n... (Arjun Ray)
• Subject: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:51:28 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <oikkgusbojvhgvt9lj629ue9jrpptq4mvj@4...> from "Arjun Ray" at Jun 14, 2002 08:44:33 PM

Arjun Ray scripsit:

> A sociological fact is one thing.  Deeming it immutable and more, worthy
> of sanction in the form of a standard to enforce it, is another.

I am not treating it as immutable, nor worthy of sanction.  I simply say
that a design which ignores it will not fly.

> (Also, isn't DSDL in the picture here?  Why then is just the current state
> of only the "XML community" decisive?)

AFAIK all known DSDL parts are XML-related.

> | There simply does not exist any generally accepted view of when attributes 
> | should be used rather than child elements.  
> 
> I note that you dodged the question again. ;-)

Are you asking for my *personal* views?

> I don't see how neutrality is important, unless it is established policy
> to bless what appears to be current practice, no matter how ill-informed.

If current practice is disregarded, we are writing for the trunk, something
I have no desire to do.

> | excepting the obvious (attributes are unordered and can't contain elements
> | or other attributes).
> 
> So, if they are different, why the push for identical treatment?

I didn't say "identical", I said "as identical as possible".

> I also
> note (in view of a recent thread) that it seems to be a common maturation
> experience to grow from attribute-happy to element-wise.  I don't see how
> making potentially unwise decisions even easier than they are would make
> experience acquired any less painful.   

I don't intend to be in the business of legislating how programmers and
document designers do their jobs.  Sharp tools cut.

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@r...>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>

• References:
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Next by Date: Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
• Previous by thread: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Next by thread: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread