[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On 8/11/05, Philippe Poulard <Philippe.Poulard@sophia.inria.fr> wrote:
> Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> > On 8/11/05, Philippe Poulard <Philippe.Poulard@sophia.inria.fr> wrote:
<snip/>
>
> ok, let's have more info : instead of <b>, let's use <xhtml:b> (with the
> right namespace declaration) ; one can decide that <b> is used for
> naming of a person (why not, even if it is certainly a bad choice), but
> one can't decide the same for <xhtml:b>, because it really stands for
> "bold" and nothing else
>
> a code that respect standards will no longer decide what <xhtml:b> is for
>
Ok, so you agree; the <xhtml:b> has meaning? (IE; it has implied
semantics to the "code").
<snip>
> >
> > Respectfully disagree: structure and semantics are in the eye of the
> > beholder: tell me is a blob of XML stored in a RDB structured or not?
> > Does the same blob have any semantic meaning? What if the RDB can
> > parse the blob into a SOAP descriptor? What if it used a grammar
> > stored in another blob to do so?
> >
>
> if the semantic structure of a blob in an RDBMS tells that it is XML,
> then it is structured (whether this structure is easily accessible or
> not is another story)
>
> -what about reading an XML file as binary data ?
> -what about reading the files where are stored the tables of your RDBMS
> in a vendor-dependant binary format ?
>
> if you ignore the structure, you won't have structured data
I'm missing something; what's your point?
--
Peter Hunsberger
|
