[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: limits of the generic
At 05:19 PM 9/27/2002 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote: >Unfortunately, there are also technologies which attempt to provide >meaning. These technologies often define vocabularies which are meant >to be useful across all situations, but which can only prove effective >in situations which correspond to the worldviews of their designers. >W3C XML Schema is a classic case (especially its datatypes), but XLink >now seems destined to join it as a limited technology whose ambitions >outran its abilities. I don't know how you are defining meaning, which makes it difficult for me to evaluate what you are saying here. Is it wrong for HTML to define something called an HREF attribute, and to give that attribute semantics that allow link checking to be applied to any HTML document? That gives it meaning within one vocabulary, and expected behavior among some classes of applications that use this data. Is it wrong for XML to have ID/IDREF attributes, with associated semantics, and allow attributes to be declared to be of this type? Is it wrong for SQL or Java to have datatypes? Justify your answer ;-> Jonathan
|
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
|