Re: RS/RE, again (sorry)

>It's becoming a little clearer. I'm starting to wonder if we're talking 
>apples and oranges.  Your proposal seems to define an application
>architecture (what components say what to what). But I don't understand
>how that translates into a *language* (what is valid, invalid, and what
>constructs mean).

Very simple. The XML *language* as I look at it, is completely
seperate from the language defined in a DTD. In other words, I am
concerned primarily with the meta-language language definition, while
you are primairly concerned with the language defined *using* the
meta-language, which I leave to the "validator".

>But in XML and SGML, the concept of "what is the parse" and "what is the 
>validator" are not as interesting to users as "what is the parser going to
>return to the application" and "what is the validator going to report as 
>correct." So separating the "parser" and the "validator" is only interesting
>to CS types. Although on other days I would find that fascinating, today I
>only care about the language.

This is very important for creating a clear language definition. I
think users care about that.

FYI. I am not a "CS type", but rather a "sociologist type"... I am
concerned about rigourous definition only in so far as it affects the
overall usability/dependability to the language.

Follow-Ups: References: