• To: "'Uche Ogbuji'" <Uche.Ogbuji@f...>,"'Nathan Young -X \(natyoung - Artizen at Cisco\)'" <natyoung@c...>
• Subject: RE: Common Word Processing Format
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 09:20:19 -0000
• Cc: "'Robert Koberg'" <rob@k...>,"'Peter Hunsberger'" <peter.hunsberger@g...>,"'Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)'" <len.bullard@i...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <1133490821.15399.82.camel@borgia>
• Thread-index: AcX27nN65DqxGM/ZSimiYmRUP61d9QAMnEQA

> 
> All arguments for XHTML everywhere eventually boil down to arguments
> that rather than 
> 
> <monty>
>   <python/>
> </monty>
> 
> I should write:
> 
> <div class="monty">
>   <span class="python"/>
> </div class"monty">
> 
> No bloody thank you.

I've recently seen people trying to use the latter approach for adding
extensibility to financial messages, in the apparent belief that writing
xs:any in a schema was somehow against the spirit of things.

But doesn't it come back to architectural forms? (Perhaps I'll understand
them one day...)

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• References:
  • RE: Common Word Processing Format
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <Uche.Ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Next by Date: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Previous by thread: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Next by thread: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread