RE: 7. Are CDATA sections allowed?

> >> Peter
> Virtually everything has to deal with links between resources.
> -----------
> Absolutely untrue.
> I cant measure it (and dont know how ... ) but ancedotially I 
> can say that the fraction of XML documents I myself have run 
> into that contain linking between resources is < 1% if that.  
>   Others experience will vary, but I can assert that it is 
> completely untrue that "virtually all" XML documents need linking.

Ok, I will admit I made that figure up.  But, when you consider the 
number of XML technologies which deal with links, you'll see, (but maybe not
agree with) what I'm talking about.  And that does not include vocabularies which
are invented by language designers who are supposed to be empowered
by XML.

XML - Entities, the source of much complexity in XML, AFAICT
xml-stylesheet processing instruction.
DTD, XML Schema <!DOCTYPE, xsi:schemaLocation, xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation, xs:include, xs:import 
RelaxNG - as discussed earlier, uses hypertext references to data type libraries, also @href

XInclude, XSLT,  each of which has the need for linking.  The list goes on, if you care to look at it.


> 
> >> Peter
> Eliminating DTDs just eliminates a way of reserving your 
> vocabulary, and a syntax to go with it; it doesn't eliminate 
> the need to reserve your vocabulary.
> ------
> Completely disjoint from predefining the *meaning* of the vocabulary.

I was referring to the links between the instance document and the vocabulary.
See DTD, XML Schema, RelaxNG, Automatic Namespaces and 
possibly, though not certainly, Architectural Forms. 


> 
> 
> 
> >> Peter
> David, I honestly don't understand what you mean by layers.
> I would like to see a diagram and text explaining layers.  
> ----
> This is well beyond something I could (or have time) to 
> expound on here, and is best left off list. 

Could not find a reasonable web page on wikipedia on this, so I agree. But 'layering'
has been held up as a reason why links and everything else besides markup syntax should not
exist in MicroXML.

> 
> >> Peter
> HTML and XML to me are in the same 'layer'.  HTML is a 
> completely reserved vocabulary, while XML reserves very little.
> ---
> HTML is a defined vocabulary (semantics) AND a syntax.
> XML is a syntax and not a defined vocabulary.  It can be used 
> to express (nearly) any vocabulary but IMHO one of its best 
> feature is that it does not impose a specific vocabulary.

I come back to the notion of it being too simple.  The xml namespace
was discarded not because of the specific vocabulary but because of the ugliness of the colon
in the name.   
  
> Thus the range of data it can model cleanly is at an entirely 
> different dimension then HTML.
> There are a lot of other equally or more accurate ways of 
> saying it but they are very very different.

I agree they have a different purpose.

Peter

Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 19:20:49 UTC