Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
John, John Cowan wrote: >Jeni Tennison scripsit: > <snip> >>Of course I'm not saying that a JITT processor, or any other >>processor, can't treat a document that happens to use XML markup in >>some other way; it's just that if it *does*, it's not an XML >>processor. >> I don't recall ever calling a JITTs processor an XML processor. It is a processor that can use XML markup to impose structure on data. It could just as well use both the XML markup as well as Simon's fragmentation or even true DATATAG as part of the processing of a data set and still be a JITTs processor. It is that freedom that is one of the differences from a LMNL processor, which appears to be limited to LMNL syntax. (Correct me if I am wrong on that last point.) > >And besides, LMNL is a way cooler acronym than JITT. > Ah, but the proper acronym is JITTs (note the little "s" on the end). ;-) With that correction, obviously much cooler than LMNL! ;-) (Although I must confess a weakness for the LMNL hat. Think we may have found something for JITTs (the proper acronym) but checking on permissions before posting.) Patrick -- Patrick Durusau Director of Research and Development Society of Biblical Literature pdurusau@e...
|
