XML complexity, namespaces (was WG)
david at megginson.com
Tue Mar 23 11:28:43 GMT 1999
Didier PH Martin writes:
> By simple curiosity: Is it possible to declare an architectural
> instance from an architectural form in XML by strictly following
> the XML 1.0 spec? I do not mean here to simply have the
> architectural elements as our element properties but to declare in
> the prolog the correspondance between each markup and each
> architectural element.
Yes -- this works in both SGML and XML: in XML, the architectural
declarations use alternatives to data attributes.
Please, everyone, remember that my statement was that there is nothing
that SGML does that XML cannot do (and vice-versa), not that they
always do them in the same way.
Please step back and take the perspective of a system architect, who
is not concerned with the minutiae of tag omission, data attributes,
or ignorable whitespace: XML and SGML both provide a clear-text
serialisation format for a single-rooted hierarchical tree, with the
ability to impose arbitrary directed graphs on top of that tree.
Nodes are named and have named properties as well as children, and a
node's children can contain both data and other nodes.
All the best,
David Megginson david at megginson.com
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev