[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: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 21:22:42 +0000
• In-reply-to: <200206142051.QAA05592@m...>
• References: <oikkgusbojvhgvt9lj629ue9jrpptq4mvj@4...> <200206142051.QAA05592@m...>

John Cowan <jcowan@r...> wrote:
| Arjun Ray scripsit:

| I simply say that a design which ignores it will not fly.

Well, you said "The practice of the XML community has been overwhelmingly
to grant the GI fundamental importance".  From this, I don't see how it
follows that ability to use the same name for distinct things is critical.
Does this help organize processing of instances?  If it doesn't, how could
it help expressiveness in composing schemas?  Overloading is too geeky not
to be confusing.

|> I note that you dodged the question again. ;-)
| 
| Are you asking for my *personal* views?

Any view that propounds a coherent argument (and thus, inter alia,
explains the motivation to treat attributes and child elements alike.)

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

Badly designed ones cut more often.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Come On, DTD, Come On! Thoughts on DSDL Part 9
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: DSDL part 9: new namespace declarations not needed as part of DTD syntax?
• 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