Semantics [^*]

[james anderson]

i'd be happy with an operational/denotational definition for xml notation in
terms the dom tree abstraction. maybe, while i'm at it, i'd even hope that it
encompassed the concept 'valid'.

(as a note to the proofreaders, although i've left the 's' word out here, i,
as a rule, prefer unapproved etomological license to licensed grammatical
transgression. despite what my oed's editors may have read.)

Paul Prescod wrote:
> ...
> 
> So I'm convinced that the XML WG believes (unknowingly!) that XML has
> semantics even as they deny it. The concrete step that they could take to
> prove that I am wrong is to require the DOM to be defined in terms of
> XML's syntax instead of the tree abstraction.
>

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)