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

RE: linking, 80/20

• To: 'John Cowan' <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: linking, 80/20
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:06:55 -0500
• Cc: martind@n..., xml-dev@l...

From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:
> 
> To parse it for well-formedness, no.  To do anything
> past that, yes.  It will be in the documentation.  As 
> Jonathan said, progress is made in the semantic world 
> by having a precise formal kind of documentation for 
> the namespace.   Umm... from genCoding to Document 
> Type Definitions.  We seem to be deja re-viewing.
> 
> Choose:
> 
> NOTATION - tell me where the processor for this 
> element is (inline)

> NOTATIONs are types.

Umm... one could name the processor.  Otherwise, 
I agree.

>> MIME - give me a name for finding a processor for 
>> this document is (objects are ortho-docs)

>Media types.

Yes.

>> namespace - tell me where to find the instructions 
>> for building a processor for this guy is, or for 
>> finding the directions to where the processor for 
>> this guy is, or where the processor is and 
>> I can figure out the scope of this guy if you 
>> did it all correctly

>Naah.  Namespaces are designed to prevent name collisions and that's it.
>Anything else is all in your head.

That explains why my head hurts.

len

• Prev by Date: Re: Infoset chewing gum (was Re: linking, 80/20)
• Next by Date: Re: linking, 80/20
• Previous by thread: RE: linking, 80/20
• Next by thread: Re: linking, 80/20
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread