[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
jlowery@scenicsoft.com (Jeff Lowery) writes:
>In the end, I guess it boils down to what's considered 'atomic'
>according to the logical data model of the business. So I was being
>somewhat malicious in my remarks.
I think the notion of using XML to make markup atomic is pretty well
dead at this point, given things like QNames in attribute values,
gHorribleKludge, etc.
I've been conflicted about this kind of stuff for a long time, but at
this point I've concluded that markup takes more forms than XML, and
that CSS is probably better served by the choice of markup that it made
than it would be with piles of attributes, even if they were put into a
CSS namespace or somesuch.
(Regular fragmentations is designed to handle precisely these cases,
creating a process for fragmenting content and turning it into explicit
XML markup. Not yet perfect, though.)
QNames are still especially repulsive since it takes an understanding of
the namespace processing context merely to figure out the contents of
the attribute, never mind what it might mean, but a continuing stream of
people who insist there is no problem there has left me without much
hope for that problem.
>I'm so ashamed. I'll take a timeout in the corner of my office to think
>about what I've done.
No need.
-------------
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
|
