[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> Erik Wilde wrote:
> >
> >...
> > i think that once you start doing interesting and diverse things with
> > structured data, there must be a common understanding what is relevant
> > and what is not, so in summary: what is the essential content of the
> > data. and i think this is where the infoset started. xquery would be
> > impossible with only the xml syntax. dom had to made the same decisions
> > (though it made some of the differently).
>
> That's fine. Infoset extensions are wonderful for spec writers. More
> power to the infoset!
>
> But the issue at hand is a *syntactic* *interoperability* issue.
<AOL>Yes. Precisely. I've been late keeping up with this thread, and I'm
glad someone got to this point before I did.</AOL>
I'm not sure how this discussion keeps drifting to the semantics, which don't
bother me (local interpretation, IMHO, works especially for linking).
I suppose there is one wry historical note related to semantics: as I
understand it, the actuate and show bugs were introduced in order to align
XLink more closely with HTML href. Then along comes the HTML WG to dis XLink
anyway, which makes those baubles even more useless.
--
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/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 -
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/libra
ry/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF -
http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A
1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC
|
