W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2002

Re: PIs considered harmful Was: XML-SW, a thought experiment

From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 19:27:09 -0500
Message-Id: <p04330103b89de356df5c@[]>
To: "'www-tag'" <www-tag@w3.org>
At 3:48 PM -0800 2/23/02, Piotr Kaminski wrote:

>That's interesting, I didn't know.  However, I think my original point
>still stands.  If you're using PIs to make DC annotations, how would you
>"annotate the annotations" so to speak if nested PIs are not permitted?

The annotation vocabulary could be explicitly designed to be 
recursive if this seems important.

>But wouldn't that completely defeat the original point of the PIs, which
>was that they're "outside" the scope of validation?  So what happens if I
>now inherit an unmodifiable schema that specifies what PIs are allowed
>where -- how do I add the custom new PIs necessary for my application?  I
>think we've come full circle.  :-)

There can be more than one schema for a document. There can be more 
than one validation layer. There is more than one schema language.

| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
|          The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001)           |
|              http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/              |
|   http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/   |
|  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://www.cafeaulait.org/      |
|  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/     |
Received on Saturday, 23 February 2002 19:31:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:30 UTC