Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: len bullard <email@example.com>
- To: "Steven R. Newcomb" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 22:56:02 -0500
Steven R. Newcomb wrote:
> Property sets describe classes of nodes, and the properties of each
> class of node, as such nodes are output by a parser for a given
> notation. A property set does not describe any methods, so it can
> form an excellent all-purpose foundation for methods and applications.
> Since every property of every syntactic construct is assigned a name
> in a property set, the names of properties readily form a natural
> basis for query languages, too.
> Having a property set for XML would set the stage for XML to become
> the language of documents that integrate information expressed in all
> other notations, because they can pretty much all have property sets,
Yes. This comes up on the VRML list from time to time as its designers
puzzle over the best way to work with XML and DOM. If the property
set approach were taken, IMHO, many of the issues of mapping among
language standards would be settled and work could go forward in a
and rigorous way. The days of debating pointy brackets and curly
brackets should be over. Nodes are nodes. Must be. Unfortunately,
because XML is a syntax specification, that isn't workable except
by ugly tricks with object tags and VRML protos.
OTW, DOM will be extended with a core for each language, and XSL will
sink to the bottom from all of the new flow objects some see as their
best bet for integration. To me, that appears to defeat the whole
purpose of this work.
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)