[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Let's look at the substantive part of this message.
If I understand you correctly, Steve, you are
turning the markup world on it's head a bit.
Instead of the element type declaration dominating
the instance (here is the contract, it is enforced
on any one of these you encounter), you are saying
the instance declares the classes to which it belongs
(here is my contract, pick the right declaration)
and the instance dominates the contract?
Is that it? I understand that you advocate arch
forms, and don't dispute they are a solution to
that. I want to first discuss the requirement
itself and ensure I understand that.
Then the archform solution such as
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?IS10744 arch
name="somearch"
public-id="+//IDN me.com//NOTATION Some Architecture//EN"
dtd-public-id="+//IDN me.com//DTD Some Architecture//EN"
doc-elem-form="somedoc"
renamer-att="somedocnames"
options="option1 option2"
?>
<mydoc somearch="somedoc"/>
which will immediately invoke the wrath of the PIhaters,
but regardless of that, how does that example illustrate
a solution to the requirement (multiple classes for
one instance)?
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven R. Newcomb [mailto:srn@coolheads.com]
Someday we'll wake up and realize that, from an
information management-and-interchange perspective,
it's very, very useful for an element to declare that
it's an instance of multiple element types, and to be
able to invoke full syntactic validation of such
instances against all their classes, in syntactic
space, including both context and content. Anything
less is suboptimal as a basis for flexible,
mix-and-match information interchange via XML, among
people who want to cooperate with each other, but who
have endlessly specialized local requirements.
Architectural forms, anyone?
http://www.hytime.org/htnews.html (first paragraph)
|
