- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 13:43:14 -0400
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 01:47 PM 6/13/00 -0500, Al Gilman wrote: >This is why Simon, TimBL, Tim Bray and I, each in our own words, have all >been talking up separation of concerns. Whether you call it packaging, >layering, or architecture, there needs to be a way for syntax and semantics >to coexist in the the platform for effective communication without sending >processing into a spiral of infinite regress. > >"Zero semantics" is a Solomonic judgement that this mother-claimant, at >least, wants to reject immediately. I think you're overstepping here, at least so far as you're using my name. "Zero semantics" or as close to zero as possible, in XML itself is exactly what I want, precisely in order to further that 'separation of concerns'. I'm perfectly willing to accept total semantic contingency for XML documents when treated purely as XML documents. Layers of processing above the XML parser may add semantics as they see fit, using packaging or other systems, but I'm quite happy in agreeing with Walter that XML documents, seen purely as XML, have very little semantic character and should not have semantics forced on them at that level. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth http://www.simonstl.com
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 13:40:50 UTC