Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Dan Connolly wrote: > It's inconsistent with the stated design goals of the spec: > > 8.The design of XML shall be formal and concise. XML may be formally defined, but that doesn't mean that XML documents must be. English can be formally defined (more or less; our understanding of English is incomplete), but a document in English exists iff someone has fixed it in a concrete medium. > Again, if you insist that the definition of XML somehow > depends on interactions in the physical world, I'm afraid > we have irreconcilable differences. Not the definition of XML, only the defn. of "document". m-w.com gives the following definitions: An original or official paper relied on as the basis, proof, or support of something. Something (such as a photograph or a recording) that serves as evidence or proof. A writing conveying information. A material substance (as a coin or stone) having on it a representation of thoughts by means of some conventional mark or symbol. All of which specify a substrate, not a mere abstraction. -- There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan@r...> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
|
