Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Right. We use well-formedness because of the medium. What is biting us is the medium is based on addressing and it is unreliable in well-formed only documents because reliable addressing depends on typed information. Ok, rising to the bait... This has nothing to do with SGML. It is a system vocabulary problem. The same problem is there for any notation processor. Understanding that simple fact was the brilliance of Hytime and failing to account for it is the arrogance of XML. len -----Original Message----- From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@S...] > -----Original Message----- > From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...] > Ever inscribe Arabic numerals into stone? Requirements > count. Thanks for elucidating a requirement that Roman numerals fufill better than Arabic! I hadn't thought of that ... and it does explain why you tend to see Roman numerals on cornerstones and tombstones... Anyway, SGML *is* best for inscribing documents into "stone" so that they can be read in 20 or 50 years. XML evolved from it to meet use cases requiring messages enscribed in "paper", and finding and cross-referencing information is more important than persisting it forever. xml:id is being proposed because the requirement of cross referencing information easily outweighs the requirement to leverage the SGML standards in many XML applications these days.
|
