[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Michael Kay said:
>> My interest in this list is for discussing if some of ideas
>> developed from the CanonML program can be implemented in a
>> future XML specification.
>>
>> I am not interested in debate about weakness or strengths of
>> the CanonML approach here.
>
> How can you discuss whether the ideas are suitable for incorporation
> into XML without discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the ideas?
>
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
"[...] for discussing if some of ideas developed from
the CanonML program [...]"
is not equal to
"[...] debate about weakness or strengths of the CanonML
approach [...]"
First belong to *ideas/philosophies* about markup languages and data
storage. Second belong to specific *implementation* of a particular
language.
For example, a general idea is one can mark either tags or the text. If
you choose mark tags (which is ideal for documents) you can implement
(this general idea) in different ways (TeX, XML, or liminal
implementations):
\em{XML can be improved}
<em> XML can be improved </em>
[em}XML can be improved{em]
Discussions about my specific usage of double colons or the special
notation for empty tags or if i use "]" instead of ")", belong to
criticism to the specific CanonML proposal and I will not discuss it here.
If anyone is interested that could be debated in Canonical Science Today.
However, questions as "XML has model for metadata, but has not model for
metametadata, we could implement this similar to,
<tag a={b='metadata'}="metadata">Data<tag>"
would be of interest (and i am interested) here.
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
|
