- From: Martin Bryan <mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 09:38:53 +0100
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 15:01 19/6/97 -0500, David G. Durand wrote: >And let's hear why having >all meta-data in XML is a wonderful idea. Not only that, but why must the metadata be in a single file? If we had subdocs I would suggest that there is a strong case for metadata being incorporated as subdocument entities - this is really what people need: a means of associating structured metadata with a file which does not conform to the same structure as the data in the file. Why invent a convoluted and restricted mechanism for doing something which is easy to do in SGML already? (DSIGS that need checksums might be a problem here though!) >I'm not opposed to the idea of namespaces, but the last minute rush is very >worrisome, and the reasons behind that rush are _not_ being clearly >presented to this group -- nor are the requirements and technical tradeoffs >being presented. Tim says the deadline is Q4 of 1997: this makes much more sense than July 1st. >Are the requirements (singly or in combination): > > 1. attachment of abstract semantics > 2. unquification of names > 3. attachment of unique names to short names in an instance > 4. parsability by a one-pass parser > 5. generatability on the fly with no discontinuous dependencies that >would require buffering attlist declarations and the instance in progress >while you do generation. > 6. Conformance to notational prejudices of the engineers involved. > 7. ??? ... 7. Ability to build compound documents (with and without validation) ---- Martin Bryan, 29 Oldbury Orchard, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029 E-mail: mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com For details about The SGML Centre contact http://www.sgml.u-net.com/ For details about the Open Information Interchange initiative contact http://www.echo.lu/oii/home.html
Received on Friday, 20 June 1997 04:40:33 UTC