[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> If you can't solve a markup problem in a way which remains amendable to
> direct XML 1.0 representation, I'm not sure the problem is worth solving
> in that way. Infoset extensions of the sort you suggest strike me as
> the worst kind of duct tape and chewing gum. If we need those kinds of
> patches, there's a problem deeper down that needs to be solved instead.
maybe that's the point. i don't have a markup problem. the problem is
that some useful semantics (hyperlinking) are being viewed as if they
were tied to markup (which they currently are because xlink 1.0 only
defines markup). however, the semantics should be defined somewhere
else, and then people could choose whatever markup they like, xlink 1.0
markup for the namespace-tolerant people, and xhtml markup for the
html-legacy providers. and if the svg people decide that they don't want
any of these, then they can invent svg-specific markup for the xlink
data model.
so my point is: define semantics and a associated data model, and then
let people decide which markup they would like to have. tying every
discussion to markup and namespaces and the problem that people have or
may have with colonized names simply misses the point.
and again (even though this is dangerous): xml schema did it exactly
that way, because there were some important semantics to be captured,
and they did so using infoset extensions. i know that the psvi
contributions are not everybodies darling, but so far i haven't seen any
reasonable way of solving the problem differently.
cheers.
erik wilde - tel:+41-1-6325132 - fax:+41-1-6321035
mailto:net.dret@dret.net - http://dret.net/
computer engineering and networks laboratory
swiss federal institute of technology (eth)
* try not. do, or do not. there is no try. *
|
