• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: reaching humans (was Re: Extract A Subset of a W3C XML Schema?)
• From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
• Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 04:25:36 +0200
• Organization: nil
• References: <r02000000-1026-459A9384C3C311D794470003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• Reply-to: james.anderson@s...

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> 
> james.anderson@s... (james anderson) writes:
> >despite the truism, that the generic identifer is just a special
> >attribute, what is the advantage to making the universal depend on the
> >ideosyncratic?
> 
> That it's local.

not everywhere.

> 
> I guess I just don't value the universal enough to participate in your
> world.

but you would agree to the advantage of "<ol>" over ".TB 4", to go back thirty
years (http://www.sgmlsource.com/history/AnnexA.htm), and admit the advantages
of CSS over the HTML 1.0 rendering model? the issuses are the same.

> 
> >> >is /@ that much more difficult than / ?
> >>
> >> What language are you speaking?  If that's XPath, I didn't think we
> >> were in the classic elements/attributes tussle.
> >
> >think again.
> 
> I guess you're not fond of architectural forms either?

i don't understand how anything i wrote would imply that.

...

• References:
  • Re: reaching humans (was Re: Extract A Subset of a W3C XML Schema?)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: reaching humans (was Re: Extract A Subset of a W3C XML Schema?)
• Next by Date: Re: String interning (Was: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?)
• Previous by thread: Re: reaching humans (was Re: Extract A Subset of a W3C XML Schema?)
• Next by thread: Re: reaching humans (was Re: Extract A Subset of a W3C XML Schema?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread