Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
AndrewWatt2000@a... scripsit: > >No, I just take a slightly narrower view of what XML is. > > Can you explain why linking and styling are "in" this narrower view and other > things not? Historical grounds, primarily. The original SGML-on-the-Web was to have three phases: syntax (based on SGML), linking (based on HyTime), and style (based on DS*L). > Might this not be a fairly arbitrary definition of where the boundaries of > XML should be drawn? All boundaries are arbitrary. > If XML 1.0 had had a clear data model then we might not have the assortment > of DOM, XPath 1.0, XML Infoset, PSVI, AABSABI and the XQuery data model. It > would have made life a heck of a lot simpler to have a single, > well-thought-out data model. Which would have delayed the release of XML 1.0 by probably five years. -- Winter: MIT, John Cowan Keio, INRIA, jcowan@r... Issue lots of Drafts. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan So much more to understand! http://www.reutershealth.com Might simplicity return? (A "tanka", or extended haiku)
|
