XML complexity, namespaces (was WG)

[David Megginson]

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

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.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;
(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)