RE: breaking up?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

No.  It is system vs data.   Document is 
like spec or standard:  no meaningful 
discriminators.   Maybe system doesn't 
either, or maybe it does.  When it means 
"handler" it means a named system.  That 
is why we had NOTATIONs that named systems.

XML is a system view, tied directly to 
what the original project said it was: 
SGML *on The Web*.   That part was 
simplifying if Web meant URI/URL, HTTP and 
TCP/IP.  What happens?  People began to try 
to do more with the "Mail System" and 
push it into "The Operating System". No 
one can tell anyone very definitively 
what "the web" is, so now we get a closed 
TAG so that system can operate with a 
minimal set of "Semantics".  Cherry.
 
One can't simply say, "lot of semantics". 
One has to understand the origin of 
"semantics" and that is "meaningful 
within a system".  You can close 
the system or leave it open but you 
have to recognize it is there and 
say what IT is.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Leigh Dodds [mailto:ldodds@ingenta.com]
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 9:26 AM
To: Simon St.Laurent; Tim Bray
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: breaking up?



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]

Are you suggesting that these are orthogonal divides? I'm not sure 
that they are, and wonder whether document vs. infoset is actually 
document vs. data, just in a slightly different guise.

Exposing these different approaching is a useful exercise, if 
for no other reason that illuminating the viewpoints and pre-conceptions 
of the folk taking part in the debates.