[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
My guess is (and I wasn't there) is that it added
complexity and duplicated features in the tree. SGML
is complicated enough without adding yet another
feature that isn't useful in a large number of cases.
However, turning this on the head a bit, if XML
was to be a simplified SGML, why would we have added
features that are not very useful in a large number
of cases?
Keep in mind, SGML had to be modified
slightly to make XML a proper subset so it is
conceivable that something along this line could
have been added. Again was it 'very useful in a large
number of cases' where those cases did not include
all of the things to which XML has been applied
in the aftermath that the right people considered
important then.
Only a few wild and crazy people thought XML would
become the lingua franca for all bits on the wire.
len
From: ian.graham@utoronto.ca [mailto:ian.graham@utoronto.ca]
Quoting "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>:
> I think the general idea is that if the ordering of pieces of
> information associated with an element matter to an application, then
> they should be declared in the content model as child elements, where
> you have various regular-expression-like options for describing ordering
> options.
I agree with this interpretation, but it does not explain _why_ attribute
order
is explicitly not relevant.
|
