Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: "Sam Hunting" <email@example.com>
> XML is great, I would never trash it, but it doesn't meet all
> requirements. I see the emergence of little languages developed by markup
> people as a very encouraging, grass roots sign.
If it leads to standard exchangeable conventions for describing and declaring notations.
If not, there will be no synergy, and we are stuck in the silly WXS world of complex types
and simple types (err...simple values) where the simple types may have complicated
values and the complex types can only have simplistic values.
An XML document is not only a linked tree of elements, and a linked tree of
entities, but also a tree of notations. User-definable notation could be retrofitted
to WXS with very few problems (for most uses): it is just allowing user
definable lexical spaces (and perhaps notation-specific facets) and the
mappings to types. For people interested, this is the kind of thing that
Schemamachine in combination with (for example) Regular Fragmentations
> Content = data + markup as ever -- it's just that outside the marketing
> departments and the committees the notion of what "markup" means is
> becoming a lot more flexible.
Because the committees are interested in starting from the fact of XML,
rather than the fact of humans needing congenial bootstrapping notations.
Both are very good places to start from.