[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
AndrewWatt2000@aol.com scripsit:
> >No, I just take a slightly narrower view of what XML is.
>
> Can you explain why linking and styling are "in" this narrower view and other
> things not?
Historical grounds, primarily. The original SGML-on-the-Web was to
have three phases: syntax (based on SGML), linking (based on HyTime),
and style (based on DS*L).
> Might this not be a fairly arbitrary definition of where the boundaries of
> XML should be drawn?
All boundaries are arbitrary.
> If XML 1.0 had had a clear data model then we might not have the assortment
> of DOM, XPath 1.0, XML Infoset, PSVI, AABSABI and the XQuery data model. It
> would have made life a heck of a lot simpler to have a single,
> well-thought-out data model.
Which would have delayed the release of XML 1.0 by probably five years.
--
Winter: MIT, John Cowan
Keio, INRIA, jcowan@reutershealth.com
Issue lots of Drafts. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
So much more to understand! http://www.reutershealth.com
Might simplicity return? (A "tanka", or extended haiku)
|
