[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jeni,
Jeni Tennison wrote:
>Hi Walter,
>
<snip>
>
>
>I'm just trying to persuade Patrick not to use a syntax that's
>similar-enough-to-XML-to-be-confusing as the input to his processes in
>the examples that he uses.
>
In my defense, I am trying to persuade Jeni to not see a data model as a
limitation on a particular serialization syntax.
What I find confusing is the binding of data model and serialization
syntax. It is useful if I want to determine if the syntax in a
particular set of data meets the data model but I could well want to
read/interpret/use that same syntax for another data model. By allowing
the selection/imposition of syntax in a set of data, I can conform it to
any data model I desire (subject to the limitations of my processing
abilities) and that seems like an advantage to me.
If for example, one wanted to say that a document must not contain any
markup (in the XML defined sense) that did not meet the well-formedness
rule and a particular DTD or schema, that is certainly doable with the
JITTs process as it has been outlined. I imagine such cases occurring
when one needs to send a file to a person who has not upgraded to a
markup processor that divorces data model from serialization syntax.
I will try to add some well-formed XML examples today so there will be
non-confusing examples of how JITTs applies to standard XML documents. I
don't find the examples confusing at all, but then I did not find our
paper confusing but bow to the weight of public opinion that it,
perhaps, just perhaps, is confusing. ;-)
As I said, yesterday and I suppose it bears repeating, JITTs can use
standard, valid, well-formed XML documents and syntax for many things.
It can also use XML syntax that violates the XML data model but I fail
to see why that is confusing?
That a serialization syntax is based on a particular data model is fine.
But the interpretation of that serialization syntax should not be bound
to the data model of its origin. (For those readers with a literary
criticism background, this can be roughly compared to adapting
reader-response criticism to markup processing. As Stanley Fish would
say (adapted): "...what they are searching for [structure of a text] is
never not already found." From the conclusion of: "Is There a Text in
This Class?")
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu
|
