[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
jcowan@reutershealth.com (John Cowan) writes:
>Simon St.Laurent scripsit:
>
>> "Eschew mixed content" seemed the most ridiculous (and memorable) at
>> the time, and I'd been having particular annoyances with general
>> failures to appreciate mixed content at that point. (Both W3C XML
>> Schema and RELAX NG seem to treat it as a special case rather than
>> as something quite normal, though RELAX NG is less extreme in that.)
>
>RNG treats text as a special case? In what sense?
RNG treats mixed content as a special case, with extra restrictions.
We've been over this recently:
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1375367
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1375385
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1375600
It's not nearly as strange as W3C XML Schema, admittedly.
>> Looking at the whole project in more detail and with examples, I
>> find the whole thing repulsive, at least when taken as an approach
>> to creating XML generally. On the other hand, as a human-readable
>> syntax for RDF, it's far better than anything else I've seen.
>
>It's always been acceptable RDF.
What's been acceptable RDF? Given that you created that set of
restrictions with RDF in mind, I'd be surprised if they didn't produce
acceptable RDF. What I said was that your flavor of XML is the
least-painful version of RDF I've yet seen. That in itself is an
achievement.
-------------
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
|
