Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
No. It is system vs data. Document is like spec or standard: no meaningful discriminators. Maybe system doesn't either, or maybe it does. When it means "handler" it means a named system. That is why we had NOTATIONs that named systems. XML is a system view, tied directly to what the original project said it was: SGML *on The Web*. That part was simplifying if Web meant URI/URL, HTTP and TCP/IP. What happens? People began to try to do more with the "Mail System" and push it into "The Operating System". No one can tell anyone very definitively what "the web" is, so now we get a closed TAG so that system can operate with a minimal set of "Semantics". Cherry. One can't simply say, "lot of semantics". One has to understand the origin of "semantics" and that is "meaningful within a system". You can close the system or leave it open but you have to recognize it is there and say what IT is. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Leigh Dodds [mailto:ldodds@i...] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 9:26 AM To: Simon St.Laurent; Tim Bray Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: breaking up? > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] Are you suggesting that these are orthogonal divides? I'm not sure that they are, and wonder whether document vs. infoset is actually document vs. data, just in a slightly different guise. Exposing these different approaching is a useful exercise, if for no other reason that illuminating the viewpoints and pre-conceptions of the folk taking part in the debates.
|
