Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 03:13 PM 8/10/98 -0700, Lisa Rein wrote:
>peter murray rust wrote:
>> As I have often
>> (probably boringly) said, I think my community is far more interested in
>> semantic than syntactic validity. (Actually they probably don't care about
>> either much...)
>How can you possibly have one without the other? If your syntax is
>bogus -- you won't get far with semantics. How can you?
Don't want to put words in his mouth, or his keyboard, but I think Peter's
point was that his community -- chemists -- don't give a hoot whether
>start< or <start> are valid XML tags; all they care about is that (using
this example) some provision is made for "starting." Peter himself seems to
have a fine grasp of the interdependence between semantics and syntax.
John E. Simpson | It's no disgrace t'be poor,
simpson@p... | but it might as well be.
| -- "Kin" Hubbard
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
