[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> wrote:
| Arjun Ray scripsit:
| I simply say that a design which ignores it will not fly.
Well, you said "The practice of the XML community has been overwhelmingly
to grant the GI fundamental importance". From this, I don't see how it
follows that ability to use the same name for distinct things is critical.
Does this help organize processing of instances? If it doesn't, how could
it help expressiveness in composing schemas? Overloading is too geeky not
to be confusing.
|> I note that you dodged the question again. ;-)
|
| Are you asking for my *personal* views?
Any view that propounds a coherent argument (and thus, inter alia,
explains the motivation to treat attributes and child elements alike.)
| I don't intend to be in the business of legislating how programmers and
| document designers do their jobs. Sharp tools cut.
Badly designed ones cut more often.
|
