[
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?
See, for instance, the "data versus text" section at the end of:
http://books.xmlschemata.org/relaxng/RngBookTextPatterns.html
That feels to me like an overstep.
> XLink's got a syntax, and if you don't like it, you can lump it.
If only it was that simple. ;-<
> But if you have managed to dethrone the past, adopting that syntax is
> not so bad.
If and only if that's your preferred syntactic representation.
> Does anybody *really* believe that Joe Website will be writing perfect
> XHTML 2.0 without tools?
I write all of my (X)HTML without tools, and would certainly like to be
able to continue that practice and use the new features of XHTML 2.0.
Navigation lists and sections are high on my list of positives.
I'm well-aware that the W3C membership is dominated by tools vendors,
but I'm not willing to accept any specification from them that justifies
itself on "but you can just buy 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
Good to hear.
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
