Lists Home |
Date Index |
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> In most systems, you have required and optional attributes. If you
> said something along the lines of:
> An element is a set of attributes. One of the attributes is the gi.
> This is required.
How could you on the one hand, require every vocabulary in the world to
have a particular attribute and then at the same time say it is nothing
special, "just another attribute." If it is not special then why require
> > The model I'm describing is radically different than XML or SGML,
> Sounds kind of like groves...
Grove nodes have one and only one node type. Even Steve hasn't been
radical enough to suggest that any grove property should suffice as the
> > The whole XML world is organized around the idea that the GI is the
> > *type name*.
> The name is not the same as the thing. I think the whole idea that gi
> == type to be one of the biggest peices of misinformation around.
The GI is the name of the type. Of course a name is not the same as the
thing. Depending on how you look at the universe the "real type" is a
totally abstract construction or a thing defined in a DTD.