[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Schemas and Semantics (was: A Personal Reply...)
- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:58:48 -0500
> If element type "foo" has specific semantics (and it
> always does IMO), this doesn't mean that these semantics
> are obvious from the instance.
I understand your POV. My contention is that it is a very
limited view... because it is limiting the interpretation to
a single application domain where the interpretation is fixed.
For a good example of what I mean, look at HTML. When an
author writes HTML, they use the constructs for
1) structural semantics
2) formatting semantics
3) a combination of both
and you cannot know, a priori, what the intent was No
schema language that I am aware of today would make that
FWIW. I have seen some environments where a single HTML
file passes through 1->3->2 when being served.