Hi Len,
>
> It's a side issue but what relationship is explicit by enclosure?
>
> IS-A or HAS-A?
>
> Seems simple enough but this is where this has fallen apart
> in the past.
> We think it is a simple, easy to recognize relationship and
> it turns out what we think we know just ain't so.
>
> The evidence only supports HAS-A.
OK, I don't know. I always thought of it as "I use it any way I
see fit", but the mechanism is static. It is the mechanism that
yields some interoperability though. It's a hard-wired convention.
>
> A post-2000 discussion of architectural forms reinforces the
> basic dilemma of web technology: it is a system attempting
> to be THE systems of systems and I've no knowledge of any
> system succeeding at that for
> more than one turn of the wheel.
Sorry. Are you talking about architectural forms, or the web?
> A lot of nonsense can be avoided by
> saying "We are only spec'ing this for the web. Full stop."
>
> And then not nudging or winking that the only system of
> concern for others is the web. That is the nonsense that
> defeats separation of concerns.
Is the proposal for xml:href, xml:rel and xml:type is
such a nudge or a wink? _I_ think it's a proposal for a simple hard-wired
convention, something analogous to the nesting of elements implying a relationship
between whatever those elements are representing.
Cheers,
Peter
