[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] more on "subelement signicance"
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Seairth Jacobs <firstname.lastname@example.org>, xml-dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 16:36:39 -0500
"The usefulness of any given subelement is due to the knowledge of its
namespace, document type, and/or parent element. Without any of the three,
the subelement does not have a useful meaning."... unless a context of
some kind can be created or inferred.
Context can be created without these. Skipping Unicode (a context),
to XML 1.0, I can know certain things about <x /> without having
a namespace, DTD, or parent. It is semantically limited.
If I know that in 80% of the cases in which I encounter
that it is a hyperlink, I have a probability based
context (frequency based on past encounters).
The way to know if it is useful is to know
the test for utility (what properties must be
accounted for to identify the pattern as a member
of a known set or to engage a mediator to find a
set, or to engage a collaborator to define a set).
So the definition of useful is narrow. One can
always boot out to a process (eg, identification).
From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
> It is still *useful* in that it is a well-formed construction
> independent of position in the tree or location in a document
> or namespace. That is of limited use but real. It might
> require extra-XML knowledge for example, but spiders that
> troll the net doing indexing might only care about meta tags
> (again, limited but possible).
This makes sense to me.
> So cases exist for which simply knowing <a href="stuff" >
> is useful. Context is usually important but the
> rule as stated is too narrow.
Okay. What is missing or how exactly is it too narrow? Give me your
version of the statement that would satisfy your understanding.