- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:27:57 -0600
- To: "'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
No. Len wants read on demand. One can't easily get around the network costs of two fetches to process one resource, so one has to insist that it be on demand but that is not the same as optional. Otherwise and only once because this is the TAG list and this debate belongs on XML-Dev: I am concerned about creating new functionality that replicates old functionality and a direction that leads to wholesale replacement of the old functionality without regard to those who depend on it. The XML community in some part has an "XML Uber Alles; SGML die" mentality. That will only be acceptable when XML does all the jobs SGML does at least as well as it does them. Ultimately, we are on the path to ditching XML DTDs. It may be by the typical W3C "one tiny step down the path" route, but that is where this is going. So at each step, we will keep reexamining the impact of those steps on everyone on that journey. DTDs are ugly for the programmer, but easy for the author. XML by loading up the root with evermore PIsInDisguise is getting blisteringly hard to read and understand. Chris does a good job presenting the options. We have to do a good job figuring out who pays which bills per option. xml: is the 'bag o' atts' approach. It may be the best solution for some aspects of pure decoration properties, so I tend to support Chris. But also, I tend to support Paul that such still belong in single specs until we get a better understanding overall of the wholesale direction of bag 'o atts on the complex XML framework and the more complex set of diverse users. Tell me this will make life easier for the author AS WELL as the parser writer and XML programmer, and I'm a lot happier guy. len -----Original Message----- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu] Ultimately, the document is just a document. Len seems to think that we should make all processes read the DTD and accept what's written there. I'm going the opposite way. Each process applies the semantics to the document that make sense for it. This includes determining what is and isn't an ID.
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2003 11:28:29 UTC