[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "W. E. Perry" <email@example.com>, XML DEV <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:47:17 -0600
And Len (live but incompletely formed) and
Lewis (still dead but completely well-formed)
The difficulty is knowing when a Value among a set of
values is to be a floating point value without doing a
lot of rules or other kinds of processing to work that
out *For Every Instance of the The Same Kind of Document*.
Nodes are local but they receive lots of different values
and it is a good thing to know when one arrives just how
to cast it. It is also nice to do that sooner rather than
later in some cases.
The Schema appears to be an easy way to do that. The nice
thing about the name having meaning is that the egg has
to be handled delicately or the maintenance costs of
Kings' Men and Horses goes up. A priori agreements citable
by some public citation are rather good for that. Leaving it to
"programmer's discretion" in all cases is usually a really
bad idea. Simple looks good until you have to put the
egg back together again and the only instructions you
have are the crease angles in the breakage.
The issue is whether or not PSVI is required in every
case. Certainly Humpty Dumpty is allowed to be the
Master of his own fall but not his reconstruction.
Otherwise, all the king's horse and all the king's
men might fail and the king can't afford that.
Record of authority governance of the transaction
ensures the cost is commensurate with the means.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: W. E. Perry [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 1:28 PM
To: XML DEV
Subject: Re: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> I'm coming more and more to the opinion that the only semantics which
> in the end are the semantics seen by the recipient of the message.
With all deference to Len Bullard and Lewis Carroll: in the end this must
so because the recipient has the obligation to make some use of the message.
The only use which he can predictably make is one for which he is locally
capable. Even if the message arrives burdened with data schemata, content
models and canonical semantics which the recipient has pledged to honor, in
end he must instantiate the 'true' data, or semantics, or meaning of the
message as whatever it is that he is specifically capable of using,
by processing it to some locally meaningful outcome. I am merely suggesting
that the recipient be permitted to proceed directly from the XML syntax as
received to the locally meaningful instantiation of locally useful data, by
whatever means are locally at his disposal.