[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jonathan Robie complains:
> I don't know how you are defining meaning, which makes it difficult
> for me to evaluate what you are saying here.
Anything beyond "this is an element|attribute|etc. with this name
and/or content" qualifies.
> Is it wrong for HTML to define something called an HREF attribute,
> and to give that attribute semantics that allow link checking to be
> applied to any HTML document? That gives it meaning within one
> vocabulary, and expected behavior among some classes of applications
> that use this data.
It's fine for HTML to do that, because it only applies to documents
created using the HTML vocabulary. Within HTML's vocabulary, it can do
what it likes.
> Is it wrong for XML to have ID/IDREF attributes, with associated
> semantics, and allow attributes to be declared to be of this type?
I'd say it was, yes. I'd have left that to an application to process,
not built it into XML parsers.
> Is it wrong for SQL or Java to have datatypes?
Within their own contexts, no. Extending those types beyond SQL or Java
processing creates a whole new set of problems that people who use SQL
or Java seem to be remarkably bad at recognizing.
> Justify your answer ;->
I don't find your standards for justification to be generically
applicable.
-------------
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
|
