[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon,
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>Mike Champion wrote:
>
>>So, I think I'm with Joe: Documents shouldn't specify how they are to
>>be used, they should be embedded in a process that specifies how
>>specific documents are to be used. Even the aircraft maintenance
>>manual should be driven by a process that specifies when bits of text
>>are to be validated against what rules; an individual document may be
>>re-used, the schemas evolved, etc.
>>
>
>What's interesting to me about this discussion is the separation of the
>information in the XML document from the processing it will receive.
>Although the creators and senders of that document may have their own
>expectations about how that document will be processed, there is nothing
>intrinsic to the XML which binds it to particular processing.
>
Curious that the tree syntax of XML (at least if you have "well-formed"
XML) is not seen as a processing requirement. You can process
non-"well-formed" XML documents via SAX (or your MOE) that simply ducks
the question of why require the tree syntax for validity in the first
place? Isn't that a processing requirement as well?
Shouldn't processing decide what markup it wants to use and how it wants
to use it?
<snip>
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu
|
