[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On 5/11/06, juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com
<snip>Query on why people don't agree with proposal</snip>
> > Metadata can be
> > applied recursively easily enough and the existing XML mechanisms of id
> > and idref already serve to allow arbitrary graph structures
> > relating multiple levels of representation (metadata, metametadata,
> > metametametadata,....) without the need for some new syntax that
> > imposes new levels of incompatible parsing complexity. IE:
> >
> > <foo id="123">Data</foo>
> >
> > <bar idref="123">metadata</bar>
>
> Difficult to see that "easiness" in the model you typed. This may be dut
> to my lack of skill. Still the situation is poor, because i do not
> understand why liminal, for example, ignores the way you propose.
>
> Moreover, i find amazing that when minimal-simple XML was proposed, many
> folks rejected the absence of attribute model for metadata. For instance,
> Tim Bray wrote about metadata
<snip>some ancient history</snip>
> Maybe he is unaware of your proposal
No, my "proposal" is for the application of your so called
metametadata. As Tim points out it is perfectly possible to add
metadata to a tag using attributes. (I would have thought that was
well understood by someone proposing to add an extra level of
metametadata as you called it)? The result is not to propose:
> <a id="123">the W3C</a>
>
> <href idref="123">http://www.w3.org/</href>
But rather something like:
<a href="http://www.w3.org/"; id="123">the W3C</a>
<foo:hrefauthor idref="123">Sam</foo:hrefauthor>
<foo:textauthor idref="123">Ted</foo:textauthor>
(Feel free to use whatever semantics you wish.)
> This class of double attitude one often find in the XML community is
> really perplexing. Is this politics or some kind of non-standard logic is
> thougt in academia and i unknow?
There is no "double attitude" (whatever that may mean), it's simple
experience from many years of attempting the alternatives and finding
they don't work. Stick around, you might learn something. But stop
taking things personally. You're not going to get anywhere on this
list (or any other) by being defensive. (You may also want to learn to
use a spell checker if you wish to engage in intelligent discourse.)
--
Peter Hunsberger
|
