W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: DOM L2 comments, various

From: John G. Spragge <spragge@umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 00:54:49 -0400
Message-ID: <003201bf0eed$c244f3c0$66b04bcf@umich.edu>
To: <www-dom@w3.org>
Jeff Mackay <jmackay@yahoo.com> wrote:
 
> How about a real-world example that has nothing to do
> with a DTD?  Lets say I write a parser that processes
> Active Server Pages.  The syntax used to mark
> server-side scripts is <% file://insert your script here
> %>.  The script marker nodes are custom node types. 

Help me out here; I unerstood from a lot of reading that
XML (as opposed to HTML) had as its primary purpose
the definition of a syntax which would facilitate the
machine processing and generation of information.

What exactly does your proposed extension do that
you couldn't define an XML namespace to do? I have
to admit the proposal to allow for extensions which
allow things I thought the standard already allows for
rather surprised me.
 
> Still others might say that since they violate XML
> syntax rules I can't create a new node type.

I certainly have no objection; you can do anything
you want (the great advantage of computers). I
just don't see from what you wrote why you want to
do what you describe, since as far as I can tell,
XML already appears to define what you want as 
a basic feature.

--
J. G. Spragge ---------- standard disclaimers apply
Essays on capital punishment and network ethics at
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~spragge
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 1999 00:55:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 June 2012 06:13:46 GMT