[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: "Hodder, Ed" <Ed.Hodder@Bowne.com>,"XML-Dev (E-mail)" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:46:03 -0600
That is part of the question but it leads
into an interesting discussion of context
and the scope of context. Ask yourself
why transforms require a side-effect free
language? Why can a rule or assertion
based validation such as Schematron do
more powerful validation than a regular
grammar such as a DTD?
The problem so far with "semantic" is the
lack of clarity about what "to do". The
problem I have with Roger's assertion is
that in fact, data does not interoperate.
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: Hodder, Ed [mailto:Ed.Hodder@Bowne.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:43 AM
To: XML-Dev (E-mail)
Subject: RE: XML Schemas: Best Practices
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
> One may not be satisfied with "application defines
> semantic", but that is reality.
> From: Roger L. Costello
> Application specific
> semantics do not facilitate data interoperability.
So is the question really "Will an application's use of XML data be
facilitated by providing that data with a domain or context?"
|
