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

RE: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type

• From: "Len Bullard" <Len.Bullard@ses-i.com>
• To: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:17:58 -0500

It's a side issue but what relationship is explicit by enclosure?  

IS-A or HAS-A?

Seems simple enough but this is where this has fallen apart in the past.
We think it is a simple, easy to recognize relationship and it turns out
what we think we know just ain't so.  

The evidence only supports HAS-A.

A post-2000 discussion of architectural forms reinforces the basic
dilemma of web technology:  it is a system attempting to be THE systems
of systems and I've no knowledge of any system succeeding at that for
more than one turn of the wheel.   A lot of nonsense can be avoided by
saying "We are only spec'ing this for the web.  Full stop." 

And then not nudging or winking that the only system of concern for
others is the web.  That is the nonsense that defeats separation of
concerns.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Rushforth, Peter [mailto:Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca] 
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:04 AM
To: Michael Kay; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE:  xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type

One of the ways that XML allows (forces?) us to model a relationship is
with 
enclosing elements:

<factory><name>Willy Wonka's Chocolate
Factory</name><location>England</location></factory>

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type
    • From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>

• References:
  • xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type
    • From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
  • Re: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
  • RE: xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type
    • From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>