[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
> (RELAX NG is on the boundary of this, I think, but crosses out of it at
> times, in things like mixed content processing.)
Can you elaborate on this?
> Unfortunately, there are also technologies which attempt to provide
> meaning. These technologies often define vocabularies which are meant
> to be useful across all situations, but which can only prove effective
> in situations which correspond to the worldviews of their designers.
> W3C XML Schema is a classic case (especially its datatypes), but XLink
> now seems destined to join it as a limited technology whose ambitions
> outran its abilities.
XLink's got a syntax, and if you don't like it, you can lump it. But if
you have managed to dethrone the past, adopting that syntax is not so bad.
Does anybody *really* believe that Joe Website will be writing perfect
XHTML 2.0 without tools?
> Can we give up on the dream of generic semantics so that we can get some
> real work done with labeled structured content? Please? A single
> syntactic solution is useful. A single semantic solution is a wretched
> hairshirt straitjacket.
+1
--
If you have ever wondered if you are in hell, John Cowan
it has been said, then you are on a well-traveled http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
road of spiritual inquiry. If you are absolutely http://www.reutershealth.com
sure you are in hell, however, then you must be jcowan@reutershealth.com
on the Cross Bronx Expressway. --Alan Feur, NYTimes, 2002-09-20
|
