- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 22:34:22 +0200 (CEST)
- To: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, www-html@w3.org
On 26 Jun, Jim Jewett wrote:
>> I disagree. Semantic interpretation should be associated with
>> elements, not attribute values- IMHO, but I would hope that isn't
>> needed.
>
> Yes, ideally the meaning would be conveyed entirely by the elements.
> What should happen when a "required" element does not exist? Adding
> it to your local variant is tag soup. Not representing it at all is
> worse.
You include a different namespace which contain the elements you
require?
> Classes are the recognized extension mechanism. The standard doesn't
Is it? I was certain the extension mechanism was /namespaces/, in
which you can include elements with different semantic interpretation
from different XMLNS'?
Including elements from a different namespace does carry with it a
host of problems in relation to semantics, but it is, if nothing else,
keeping with the same paradigm as today.
Suddenly saying that "Not only shall elements carry meaning, but so
also shall the attribute values" is breaking with it.
Fine, there is nothing technically wrong with it, byt why do we have
to do it? We have already overcomplicated things with XMLNS, and now
we are going to overcomplicate the overcomplicated?
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net
+46 708 557 905
Received on Monday, 26 June 2006 20:33:14 UTC