Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Megginson <email@example.com>
- To: "'XML Dev'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:24:00 -0500 (EST)
Didier PH Martin writes:
> By simple curiosity: Is it possible to declare an architectural
> instance from an architectural form in XML by strictly following
> the XML 1.0 spec? I do not mean here to simply have the
> architectural elements as our element properties but to declare in
> the prolog the correspondance between each markup and each
> architectural element.
Yes -- this works in both SGML and XML: in XML, the architectural
declarations use alternatives to data attributes.
Please, everyone, remember that my statement was that there is nothing
that SGML does that XML cannot do (and vice-versa), not that they
always do them in the same way.
Please step back and take the perspective of a system architect, who
is not concerned with the minutiae of tag omission, data attributes,
or ignorable whitespace: XML and SGML both provide a clear-text
serialisation format for a single-rooted hierarchical tree, with the
ability to impose arbitrary directed graphs on top of that tree.
Nodes are named and have named properties as well as children, and a
node's children can contain both data and other nodes.
All the best,
David Megginson email@example.com
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)