Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
In spit of my recent editorial about markup vs. type systems, I agree with many of the "opposing" statements that have been made. In particular, I agree with the statement about XML 1.0 as a stable base. The base XML spec is really the only stable part of the family at this point, and we should not in fact f*ck with it. One thing disturbs me, however. Much talk seems to be made about documents or document fragments being useful because they are well-formed. I don't want something well-formed, I want something "valid". Whether validity is determined by reference to a DTD or to a schema of some other kind, I need more than just the lowest-level syntactic conformance to the XML spec. I need to be able to determine that the XML in question conforms to the syntactic and semantic constraints imposed by my application. Furthermore, I don't want to have to rely on implicit knowledge contained within a proprietary parser in order to do so. Jeff ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kuantech, Inc. http://www.kuantech.com Jeffrey E. Sussna, Principal jes@k... Distributed Content Architectures for Dynamic Online Applications ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 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...)
|
