Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Simon St.Laurent scripsit: > (RELAX NG is on the boundary of this, I think, but crosses out of it at > times, in things like mixed content processing.) Can you elaborate on this? > Unfortunately, there are also technologies which attempt to provide > meaning. These technologies often define vocabularies which are meant > to be useful across all situations, but which can only prove effective > in situations which correspond to the worldviews of their designers. > W3C XML Schema is a classic case (especially its datatypes), but XLink > now seems destined to join it as a limited technology whose ambitions > outran its abilities. XLink's got a syntax, and if you don't like it, you can lump it. But if you have managed to dethrone the past, adopting that syntax is not so bad. Does anybody *really* believe that Joe Website will be writing perfect XHTML 2.0 without tools? > Can we give up on the dream of generic semantics so that we can get some > real work done with labeled structured content? Please? A single > syntactic solution is useful. A single semantic solution is a wretched > hairshirt straitjacket. +1 -- If you have ever wondered if you are in hell, John Cowan it has been said, then you are on a well-traveled http://www.ccil.org/~cowan road of spiritual inquiry. If you are absolutely http://www.reutershealth.com sure you are in hell, however, then you must be jcowan@r... on the Cross Bronx Expressway. --Alan Feur, NYTimes, 2002-09-20
|
