[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Uh - that was the XML Schema Formal Model, not the XQuery one. I don't see
> any formal, uh, superceding (supercession?) of that.
I've always been very annoyed by the "supercede" spelling. Prescriptive grammar nannies like to say it's flat-out wrong, but as I looked it up one day, "supercede" is actually older than "supersede". It was the Old French who were too illiterate to spell Latin, not Americans. :-)
But at any rate, "supercession" would be taking it way too far. super - above. sedere - to sit. You have to try out the technically-more-likely-to-be-correct "supersession" to realize this form just plain won't work.
Back top topic: I actually wasn't aware that there was a formal semantics for WXS. And does it matter that there is? I'm not sure I like the idea that a formal semantics excuses practical weakness. It seems that a lot of W3C spec lately have put an inordinate amount of effort into cathedral-like formal semantics, rather than brutal but effective smithing at the hands of a bazaar.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
The many heads of XML modeling - http://adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6393
Will XML live up to its promise? - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think11.html
|
