Lists Home |
Date Index |
Len Bullard writes:
> One can always make a tag soup work in a closed application.
> The problem is across applications, the kinds of things that
> arch forms were originally proposed for. Note that I am
> saying "for any given problem in every case". In other
> words, the concept of complete self-describing types
> begins to break down if these types have to integrate
> with more than one application. IOW, the concepts that
> lead to the namespaces solutions only cover a subset of the
> problems they are proposed for. Then they begin to
> break down.
It depends on how you interpret "work". If you treat document
interpretation as based on local understandings, not some global vision
of agreement, then tag soup is fine. Local processors will figure out
what they can, just as they would have to do so anyway.
Namespaces provide extra information to that process, and so do
architectural forms, and so do schemas of whatever type. Depends on
what you want.
Given your usual arguments, I doubt that's what you'd understand by
"work", but it does just fine for some of us.
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:188.8.131.52.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether