[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Nicolas LEHUEN wrote:
> That's because extensibility is not something that can be achieved by
> looking at the data only. I'm sorry to ressurect my old rant "meaning is not
> in data alone, it's both in data AND code", but alas, it's still true here.
I wouldn't say that, but rather that the minimum amount of processing
model hasn't been defined after XML 1.0 and, to stick to my example,
that Namespaces in XML has not been more directive.
I don't want to bind full applications to XML documents (that would be
the end of the "late binding" which is the power of XML) but I think
that nobody has wanted to take the risk of defining any processing model
for XML after XML 1.0 and that we trying to maintain the scafolding
which as been built on top of XML 1.0 with the few tools defined by the
original recommendation!
Eric
--
See you in Seattle.
http://knowledgetechnologies.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
