[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: limits of the generic
Jonathan Robie complains: > I don't know how you are defining meaning, which makes it difficult > for me to evaluate what you are saying here. Anything beyond "this is an element|attribute|etc. with this name and/or content" qualifies. > 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. It's fine for HTML to do that, because it only applies to documents created using the HTML vocabulary. Within HTML's vocabulary, it can do what it likes. > Is it wrong for XML to have ID/IDREF attributes, with associated > semantics, and allow attributes to be declared to be of this type? I'd say it was, yes. I'd have left that to an application to process, not built it into XML parsers. > Is it wrong for SQL or Java to have datatypes? Within their own contexts, no. Extending those types beyond SQL or Java processing creates a whole new set of problems that people who use SQL or Java seem to be remarkably bad at recognizing. > Justify your answer ;-> I don't find your standards for justification to be generically applicable. ------------- Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA http://simonstl.com may be my URI http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
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
|