[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Subtyping in XML
Oh well... I guess we'll put together a tomb robbing party sooner or later. XML is YetAnotherNotation. I wonder how hieroglyph engravers kept it all consistent. I think this is at least the fourth time over the last 12 years this inescapable issue of having common link and locator types that can be interpreted correctly by different format handlers has come up in my field of observation. The last time was the IETM CGM vs IETM SGML wars. That time it was clearly a notation war; although, as has been correctly noted on the TAG list, maintainability has to be described as well; that is, some locator address mechanisms are robust against changes (typically named locations) whereas others aren't (typically structures or byte offsets). len From: Arjun Ray [mailto:aray@n...] "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote: || Makes me wonder how long it will take for the SGML concept of data || content notation to be redis^H^H^Hinvented. | | Probably as the TAG and the rest of the URI world digs into the problems | of fragment IDs and comes to understand better why locator types are | needed if different MIME types are to process the same syntax/name for a | kind of locator. Not while they're still in the throes of href disease and enthralled by the magic of colonified names. But, mentioning the dreaded H-word would break out the garlic and crosses in force. Locator types? Who...wha...? ;-)
|
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
|