Re: An open plea to the W3C (was Re: XInclude vs SAX vs

[Tom Bradford <bradford@dbxmlgroup.com>]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> The contexts of use are the problem.  XML is used to attach a lot
> of different kinds of wood in a lot of different locales.  Given a
> sufficiently large context, labels becomes entropic.   We slow that
> down by limiting the contexts.  What happens in an element that
> has no namespace and only lexically, a parent, is that it has
> no referenceable context.  It is a semantic orphan, a nail in
> search of something to attach to.
> 
> What one side here wants is that a nail coming out of a given
> process (validation against a schema) also possess the coating
> that lets it be used to hammer exposed wood (a post validation
> information set is not the original nail).  The other side just
> wants it to be the same nail without the coating.  Neither
> side is wrong;  they need nails from different boxes.

Taking a simple statement/concept, and making it much more complex than
it needs to be for no apparent gain...  Ahh, the XML world.  I don't
care what Tim's argument was for or against, I was stating that
everything serves a purpose, and not that his argument was wrong.  Hell,
I don't even know what he was arguing about.

> He didn't need a reason to have a son.  He probably doesn't need
> one to work with anything he loves.  He likes *the system*.

Actually, from a anthropological point of view, every man has a reason
for having a child, especially a son.  Whether you like children or not,
the primitive brain tells you that this is what you must do.  But
whatever.  My point today (unlike other days) was not an XML point,
merely just a 'everything has a purpose' point.

Merry Christmas

-- 
Tom Bradford  The dbXML Group, L.L.C.  http://www.dbxmlgroup.com/
Desktop, Laptop, Settop, Palmtop.  Can your XML database do that?