• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:18:33 -0800
• In-reply-to: <3C5AF60C.1010202@b...>
• References: <3C5AF60C.1010202@b...> <3C599F10.4090204@b...> <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF6362@HQ5> <200201312140.g0VLeuj19647@d...>

Bill Lindsey wrote:

> >>   * Could this property be also be obtained for
> >>     elements?
>
> > Sure, why not?
>
> Either you misunderstood my question, or you might
> reconsider using "document type" to name this property.

Right; I usually call this (the principle representation form
of an element) an "element type" (but not in mixed company :-)

Having thought more about the second question, I now believe that
the only thing that's intrinsic to an XML document is
the stuff that's manifest in the parse tree: GIs, attributes,
and content.  Everything else -- the principal type, auxilliary
types, architectural forms, etc., -- are imposed by the observer.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
    • From: Bill Lindsey <bill@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPointer crisis
• Next by Date: Re: Namespaces in XML and schemas
• Previous by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread