[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: What is an XML document?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Bob DuCharme <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:20:03 -0600
The point is that "process" is the meaningful way to determine
In the context of the debate:
o Dan thinks: XML document = "a purely abstract notion defined by a formal
o John thinks: XML document = "well-formed XML", a concrete notion
to something that has physical existence.
The question would be how Dan does apply his rule? John states it clearly.
Dan can only test once he asserts it is an "XML" document. Then John's
SGML asserts that process determines documentness. Applying a
process to an abstraction to prove membership in a set it
without application until one states the rule of process.
One can use access to prove existence, but not type unless
access requires type.
Semantic = Means to choose
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Bob DuCharme [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
The meaning of "process," as with "document" or "information," can be
considered in broader or narrower senses to cover wider or narrower domains,
but if we read it in the sense of "data processing" I think the SGML
definition for "document" still works fine. It also helps photographs to fit
in better--a photograph that can be processed as data can easily be part of
a document. The processing by the corner camera store of the film from my
camera is outside of the data processing domain.