Re: How namespace names might be used

At 01:43 PM 2000-06-13 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>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.
>

I didn't mean to misrepresent you.  Let me see if I can restate what I
meant so you can affirm it.

You did mean to achieve a clean separation of concerns between syntax and
upper layers, if I got it right.

I thought I detected a guarded openness for applications which try to
systematize the  layering of more semantics on what is there in XML itself.

I guess a point at issue is whether the additional semantics which
interoperates with the syntax is viewed as part of the XML language system
or layered on a syntactic platform, which syntax completely defines XML.  I
am happy to stipulate that this is a point on which people differ in their
default binding for the term "XML."

I was just trying to say that you were supporting an architecture where the
syntax and the semantics work together, the syntax works by itself, and at
least the syntax is recognizable as being "XML syntax."  

While in implementations it is critical to understand and honor the layer
distinctions, in terminology for public consumption the brandmongers of XML
will do well to accept the idea that upper layers so layered are viewed by
the customers of the applications as "XML semantics" and not "semantics and
not XML."

Al

Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 14:37:22 UTC