[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
- To: Bill la Forge <b.laforge@jxml.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 23:16:42 -0600
Bill la Forge wrote:
>
> From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
> >Darn. Maybe LISP was the right language after all and forty years
> >of computer scientists just didn't "get it".
>
> Lisp and XML have a few things in common, like being easy to
> determine if they are well formed. Frankly, I think XML will be
> better in the long run because it can be validated against various
> schema.
As much as I resisted it in the early working groups for
various reasons, I find myself agreeing with the position
that it is good to have formal definitions for both
wrll-formed and validated information. I had worked in
that mode in the IDE/AS, IADS and GE systems, but the
notion wasn't formally expressed. I like ISO 8879 DTDs mainly
because they are for me, much easier to read and use
to parse in my head. As I implement more with relational
systems and use the tables to store the property sets of
both schemata, properties of schemata as well as instances,
I think I have more insight now into why people want
multiple schema types even without the obvious extensions
such as inheritance.
nodes is nodes is nodes.
len
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
