[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Paul Prescod wrote:
> 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
> it?
It isn't always required in SGML - this:
<foo>
<bar>some text</bar>
<>and some more</>
</foo>
is exactly equivalent to:
<foo>
<bar>some text</bar>
<bar>and some more</bar>
</foo>
This isn't a million miles from something like a #FIXED attribute, where the
value and existence is determined by something not immediately apparent in
the instance. I'm no expert in AF (despite Steve's 2 day seminar in about
'93), yet I don't feel that the idea that the GI is an attribute of an
element requires a great leap. Given that SGML allows a start tag to look
like:
<foo bar>
if the attlist looks like:
<!ATTLIST foo fooatt (bar | pub) #IMPLIED>
I can accept how Steve came to his conclusions. That the same arguments
don't fit in the context of XML is interesting but not significant, IMHO.
--
Regards,
Marcus Carr email: mrc@allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Einstein
|
