Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Tim Bray <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 07:43:36 -0700
At 03:51 PM 4/23/98 +0200, james anderson wrote:
>the recommendation does, in deed, assert a semantic for xml documents.
>the xml recommendation defines a two relations among elements (subsumption and
>precedence), defines a (yes) language for describing these relations (the dtd
>entities), asserts three states for documents (valid, invalid, and
>unspecified), and specifies how to infer which state a document is in based
>this is a "semantic"....
Reasonable people may disagree. I believe that sequence and
containment are purely syntactic in nature and imply no semantic
whatsoever. Similarly I see no "semantic" in asserting that my butt
is currently placed on top of a chair, or that this chair is currently
placed in front of my computer.
>it is disheartening to read where attention is deflected from the issue by
>claiming that no semantic was intended.
Get real. You may choose to argue that containment and sequence
constitute, in some philosophical framework, "semantics", but the claim
that no semantic was *intended* is unchallengeable because in point of
fact when we wrote the spec we considered that what we were describing
was syntax. -Tim
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)