Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: reaching humans (was Re: Extract A Subset of a
 james.anderson@s... (james anderson) writes: >"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: >> james.anderson@s... (james anderson) writes: >> >despite the truism, that the generic identifer is just a special >> >attribute, what is the advantage to making the universal depend on >> >the ideosyncratic? >> >> That it's local. > >not everywhere. I take it that you're saying localness is not an advantage everywhere. In the context of the current thread, where universal appears to have become conflated with abstract, I have to disagree. Widely shared can be good, but given the choices you're proffering, I'll take local and idiosyncratic any day. >> I guess I just don't value the universal enough to participate in >> your world. > >but you would agree to the advantage of "<ol>" over ".TB 4", to go >back thirty years (http://www.sgmlsource.com/history/AnnexA.htm), The advantage there isn't in the universality - it's in the declarative approach over the procedural, as that annex makes clear. >and admit the advantages of CSS over the HTML 1.0 rendering model? the >issuses are the same. The CSS model is no more or less 'universal' in scope than the HTML 1.0 model. As far as reliability across programs and platforms is concerned, HTML 1.0 is often more 'universal'. (I like CSS largely because it works with whatever idiosyncratic markup I choose, when it works.) I think you must have a different meaning of as well as value for universal. >> I guess you're not fond of architectural forms either? > >i don't understand how anything i wrote would imply that. Well, on the one hand you seem to consider the DTD part of the document, which is good, given that AFs typically depend on fixed attributes. On the other hand, you seem to want to use the primary identifier AS THE ELEMENT NAME, which seems counter to AF practice, where localization of element names is generally welcome. To take the original example, you appear to dislike: >> <ProductPartIdentifier >> UID="9_5.8">123-456-789</ProductPartIdentifier> In this case, the UID tells you what ProductPartIdentifer "really" is, and could be useful grist for an AF processor while still keeping the human-readable name around. You seem to prefer: > <!DOCTYPE SOME_UDEF SYSTEM "data:,<!ELEMENT UDEF_9_5_8 (#PCDATA) >" [ > <!ATTLIST UDEF_9_5_8 MIL-STD-2549 #FIXED "Part Product Identifier"> > ]> > <UDEF_9_5_8>123-456-789</UDEF_9_5_8> > >or just > > <UDEF_9_5_8>123-456-789</UDEF_9_5_8> And claim "either you have got it right or you have not" - hardly a call for the kind of flexibility AFs seem designed to provide. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org 
|
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
|
|||||||||
