[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Someone usually does. The SGMLers
understand it and practiced it virtually
like a religion (the SGML Way). It gets
messy however to ignore processing contexts
if systems are to interoperate without
human interventions. A reason for
understanding what features XML Schema,
RELAX NG and/or Schematron enable is to
pick the right tool to get the right
strength of agreement. (Am I the only
one who considers Schematron almost
heroic? It is the one piece the others
need consistently and why I am holding
out for DSDL.)
XML starts a layer of agreements. It
fixes the first layer and then lets/insists
that humans work out the rest. It is the
authoritative scope of their results that
befuddles and entangles. That is part of the
messiness of mixing up standards and specs.
It quickly becomes a power trip insteaad
of an enabling activity.
<offtopic>There was a special last night on the History
Channel where a four star from the NSA perfectly
explained these distinctions. It was a hopeful
omen that there are pockets of authorities with a
job to do who understand their job within the
scope of their authority.</offtopic>
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@CS.UCLA.EDU]
Is this data vs information well-known?? -- XML is for exchange of data,
but XML with schema is for exchange of information.
I like that, but was wondering -- someone should have already said this..
|
