- From: Frank Steimke <f-steimke@b...>
- To: xml-dev@l...
- Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2022 10:37:05 +0100
Section 2.8 Prolog and Document Type Declaration Production Rule
26 VersionNum together with the following note, which explains the
semantic of VersionNum as a decimal Number:
"Even though the VersionNum production matches any version number
of the form '1.x', XML 1.0 documents SHOULD NOT specify a version
number other than '1.0'."
Greetings,
Frank
Am 29.01.22 um 04:51 schrieb Rick
Jelliffe:
OK, so show me in the "massive" XML standard
(without resorting to any other layer or standard) how to say
that some specific string (i.e an attribute value ir element
contents) containing digits is a number, say a decimal number?
The only proper semantics of a string
in standalone XML data content or attribute values
is its influence on rendering and collation
(sorting, matching). Anything else involves
handwaving, metonymy, and passing off other layers
(which certainly will exist) as "XML".
Are you saying the massive XML 1.0 standard
document version 5 is full of lies?!
Standalone XML provides no way to
express values: no datatypes not even boolean or
numbers.
And yet there thousands of words in the bare
bones standard. Surely there's more to XML than this
simplistic explanation you give?
I jest; og course it is! Of course it does!
It tells you how certain characters mean, what it means
when you during them together in certain order, what the
meaning of your string is if it's wrapped in < and or
with an @, what the concept of whitespace is, the concept
of elements and attributes and namespaces and URI and lots
of other things.
I suspect you don't mean that, right? You're
referring to something outside of all the things XML
actually defines, inside the wrapper and all the
ontologically agreement it possesses, *there* XML don't
define any meaning. I think you're kidding yourself if you
think XML is this pure character based text channel that
carries no meaning. Even in the concept of nested elements
there is meaning. Even a root element with a cdata section
has meaning before we even got the cdata.
XML provides no way to express facts:
no surity level of the sources, no reliability of
the sources, not even booleans.
Don't really know if anyone has made that
claim, though.
And we should not be surprised if
people who want a notation to directly represent
values adopt JSON, which has enough delimiters and
rules to represent boring values without fuss*
Are you trying to say that JSON has more
rules and / or special characters than XML, or something
like that? Because that would be an interesting and bold
claim worth diving into. :)
Cheers,
Alex
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|
Cart
