XM<EM>L</EM>

[james anderson]

greetings,

am i the only one who is struck by the frequency with which such  clarifying
remarks appear on this list? i know there was "SGML" and there was "HTML", but
why is does XML have to be "XM<EM>L</EM>"?
1. the PR is so absolutely clear that it is intended to be a notation and not a
language.
2. there are other related - but autonomous - standards (XSL, XLL, DOM) which
address various of the sorts of semantic concerns which are necessary before a
means to encode becomes itself a code/language.

that is to say it neither trys to be, nor is, nor needs to be a language.
that given, why isn't the constellation something on the order of XMLn, XMLss,
XMLls, XMLdom?

just wondering,
james,

W. Eliot Kimber wrote:

> XML [operates]  at the document representation syntax level [only], so it can
> have nothing to say about the semantics of the data represented. On the
> other hand, XLL and HyTime (and DSSSL and XSL) operate at the semantic
> level and therefore may have lots to say about the semantics of the data
> represented.




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)