Re: Stylesheet association

Terry Allen wrote:
> My point is exactly that an XML instance
> without a style sheet, an applet that interprets the semantics of
> the GIs, a DTD, or some other document that collects that and
> similiar information is uninterpretable.  

I missed something here:  uninterpretable by what or whom, 
summarized where, which packaging implications?  Are you saying 
that because the stylesheet isn't used, that one can't know
what the semantics are?   That will be the case.  If 
object encapsulation, virtual interfaces, etc. are used, 
you can't and that is exactly why some will prefer to do 
this.  Inheriting the interface, not the implementation, 
and hiding the implementation is key to distributing 
objects without giving away code.  I guess what I am 
saying is, some people think the way to maintain 
proprietary code is to encapsulate and deliver only 
exposed information.  I think we shall see a lot 
of applications where XML is just initialization 
data and the stylesheets are irrelevant.

>  As some other piece is
> required to interpret XML markup, the opportunity exists to insert
> a summary of EMPTY GIs there - an idea mooted last Fall in the
> context of PIs.

I was just looking at the Microsoft proposals.  They include a 
set of DTD fragments and tables to explain each.  That has a 
number of empty tags.  It was easy to read and understand.

> I am more concerned about packaging and delivery in general than
> with <empty/>; I brought it up only to show that packaging and
> delivery have implications for aspects of XML that have already
> been decided - but could be reconsidered before everyone's feet
> are set in concrete.  Now's the time.

Ok.  What implications?  I must be missing the point of this 
in the mail avalanche.