- From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:07:38 +0100
- Cc: "'www-tag'" <www-tag@w3.org>
Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> IMHO
>
> From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
> [...]
>
>>Perhaps schema languages should be written
>>in a more permissive fashion so that they automatically allow
>>anything from other namespaces.
>>
>
> Or maybe there should be a half-way point. There should be
> a standard element type (which any language can subtype) whose
> elements in a document have an FYI status. That is,
> their understanding is optional and they carry their own significance
> independently of the rest of the document, rather than
> modify the effects of other things in the document.
It's only a part of the problem IMO :=) ...
Adding a FYI element is enough to change the content model of an element
from text only to mixed and likely to break many applications.
What's nice and useful with PIs and comments is that they are out of
band signals whereas new elements will always (except if they get a very
specif treatment at the level of the parsers) be in band signals and I
think that the debate isn't at a syntactic level (PIs or comments vs
elements) but rather at a more semantic (if I may say so) level: do we
need out of band signals in addition to the in band signal (ie the tree
of elements and attributes).
My 0,02 Euros.
Eric
--
See you in Seattle.
http://knowledgetechnologies.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 11:08:13 UTC