• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:58:48 -0500

> If element type "foo" has specific semantics (and it 
> always does IMO), this doesn't mean that these semantics
> are obvious from the instance.

I understand your POV. My contention is that it is a very
limited view... because it is limiting the interpretation to
a single application domain where the interpretation is fixed.

For a good example of what I mean, look at HTML. When an
author writes HTML, they use the constructs for

  1) structural semantics
  2) formatting semantics

  -or-
   
  3) a combination of both

and you cannot know, a priori, what the intent was No
schema language that I am aware of today would make that
explicit.

FWIW. I have seen some environments where a single HTML
file passes through 1->3->2 when being served.

• References:
  • RE: Schemas and Semantics (was: A Personal Reply...)
    • From: Matthew Gertner <matthew.gertner@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: A simple guy with a simple problem
• Next by Date: Re: What can be changed, and what cannot? (was: Re: Request for a poll)
• Previous by thread: RE: Schemas and Semantics (was: A Personal Reply...)
• Next by thread: RE: Schemas and Semantics (was: A Personal Reply...)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread