- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:32:28 -0500
- To: <xml-uri@w3.org>
At 06:11 PM 2000-06-14 -0400, David G. Durand wrote: >> >>The knock on relative URI-references is a semantic concern. Deal with it >>in semantics. Don't break the simplicity of the syntax to cure this >>semantic concern. It's a meat-axe solution. > >It's not at all clear to me that this is true, and I remain >persistently confused as to your notion of semantics. XML is _all_ >syntax, All XML has syntax. But syntax is not all there is to XML. Consider the XML 1.0 Recommendation. It defined the xml:lang attribute. There is syntax here, but there is also semantics that goes beyond the syntax to constrain what sort of content is OK to be within the tags. That's XML. That's not syntax. Likewise for the linking-to-stylesheets semantics: The semantics of the pseudo-attributes are exactly as with <LINK REL="stylesheet"> in HTML 4.0, with the exception of the alternate pseudo-attribute. If alternate="yes" is specified, then the processing instruction has the semantics of <LINK REL="alternate stylesheet"> instead of <LINK REL="stylesheet">. But this thread is off the track. Let's try to get back to somewhere we can move forward from. I believe that what Michael Champion was saying was that we can't have incompatible definitions facing one another across the interface between parsing and XPath. Can we agree on that? I agree with that. Al
Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2000 23:16:43 UTC