- From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:59:28 -0500 (EST)
- To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
You've raised a valid point, which hopefully others can debate on list. Before I go into it, do note this line of discussion is orthogonal to the title of this thread. It is a natural direction, but just make it clear the outcome of this line of discussion doesn't affect the logic on the title of the thread. My 2 cents is that the coder insures that the tag implementation is available, by making the code auto-downloadable as necessary. The .Net has an architecture for this. It is somewhat analgous to specifying a downloadable font, if the font isn't available, the display may degrade (e.g. non-ascii glyphs). You are basically dwelving into the issue of normative vs. distributed semantics. Tim Berners-Lee seems to point out they are both necessary. Go back to my post that links to his writings. Even a normative standard doesn't guarantee that UA will understand a tag. The UA must be conforming. Standards are always progressing. This is all a race towards semantic richness. We get there fastest by allowing distributed as well as normative semantics. This is truely my last point. To all readers, please do me a favor and don't reply to me. I keep unsubscribing and then someone emails me a juicy point :) I do trust what I said is enough to start the ball rolling. > Being almost drown in this semanticly sparkling beverage I would > like though to ask one queston: > > (Indeed, XAML is simply a format to describe an object graph > thus as per its design XAML has no semantic meaning in human sense) > > What will happen if UA will receive document with > unknown (to UA) classes/elements? > > What I shall do if I will get <mapselect> which is > unknown to my engine, as an example? > What is the fallback schema assumed? > > I can understand when XAML is used > as a compileable resource definition in Windows applications > when all classes are known and belong to the same assembly, > but seriosly looking on it as a HTML/CSS alternative... Well... > > And that physiological style of argumentation... I suppose > it shall tell urbi et orbi about your level of XAML excitement or what? > > Andrew Fedoniouk. > http://terrainformatica.com > > > -- Kind Regards, Shelby Moore http://coolpage.com
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 05:00:03 UTC