[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> / "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com> was heard to say:
> | The XML specification does not use the term "semantic
> structure". It uses
> | the word "semantic" twice:
> |
> | (a) to say that it does not constrain the semantics of elements and
> | attributes, other than those whose names beginning with "xml"
> |
> | (b) in 3.3.1, to say that the tokenized attributes such as
> ID, IDREFS "have
> | varying lexical and semantic constraints".
> |
> | These two statements are unfortunately contradictory, but
> then it's unusual
> | to find two uses of the word "semantics" that attach the
> same meaning to the
> | word.
>
> Indeed. I expect we can clarify that a bit. XML allows a document
> (actually a document type definition) author to impose some lexical
> and semantic constraints on attributes (by giving them the types ID,
> IDREF, IDREFS, ENTITY, ENTITIES, or NOTATION). But in that case, it
> isn't XML that makes the constraints, it's the DTD author.
I think that what has actually happened here is that the first extract is
using "semantics" the way it is used when discussing natural languages: it
means "meaning" or "information content". The second extract is using
"semantics" the way it is used in programming languages: it means "rules
beyond those in the grammar".
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
|
