[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
If it really were, I'd buy that. It isn't and I don't.
Yes, I know but the REC says, but the retreat to that
defense is just language lawyering: a good way to
write and a terrible way to interpret.
We really do have to quit that sort of distraction and
get down to the healthy truthful, "this thing is
by design, dereferenceable and what you point it
to is something you need to decide up front if you
intend to dereference".
OTW, the academics kill us with supersitions where
XML IS the XML Framework. That one has been murder
in the development of X3D.
Yeah, the definition of what an XML processor
is has been and will continue to be contentious.
That's a good thing if you believe in the theory
of bottom up resistance to the dominant interpretation
being the key to adaptation.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:
> That is PRECISELY why XML is a syntax specification
> and nothing more.
Well, almost. It also puts certain restrictions (some in the XML Rec,
some not) on what XML processors report to applications. For example,
attribute values cannot be dropped on the floor, nor can PIs.
> It is also why namespaces do not belong
> in the core but should be the first thing to the right of the
> + (XML 1.0 + Namespaces + ...)
On the contrary. The Namespace Rec simply adds the ability to have
URI-syntax strings in element type names and attribute names without
breaking SGML backward compatibility. It is pure syntax.
What you decide to *use* the capability for, if anything, is another matter.
|
