- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:59:04 -0500
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
I don't see a definition of semantics in your quote from Grune. It's like obscenity. One short-hand definition might be "anything not specified in the grammar." I press this point because I cannot accept arguments based on a distinction between syntax and semantics until someone defines semantics for me and demonstrates that XML is lacking them. The question is not whether XML w/namespaces should have semantics -- XML does. The question is which semantics it should have. Clearly we want "tree-building" semantics. XML also has "link-defining semantics" (ID/IDREF) and vocabulary conformance semantics (DTDs). I think that that list is sufficient but I don't argue that it is anything other than an arbitrary choice. Linking and vocabulary conformance can be banished to other specifications (XLink and XML Schema) for cleanliness but that doesn't remove them from the "XML Family." XML would be useless if it did not have *at least* the tree building semantics and is demonstrably not very useful without the other two. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself "Hardly anything more unwelcome can befall a scientific writer than having the foundations of his edifice shaken after the work is finished. I have been placed in this position by a letter from Mr. Bertrand Russell..." - Frege, Appendix of Basic Laws of Arithmetic (of Russell's Paradox)
Received on Tuesday, 16 May 2000 15:59:31 UTC