Print

Print


>> I would be interested in hearing your opinion about the alternative I
>> proposed, between defining an encoding of application parameters
>> common to all application, and defining a markup mechanism that each
>> application used for expressing its parameters in its own way.
>
> No program should claim a private markup for the same reason that
> no person should claim a private markup.

I was not defending the idea that each program should develop its own
markup, but that programs should use a common markup for expressing what
they want in their own way. Exactly like anyone can use fs (a common
vocabulary) for expressing what he want.

There is another point that make me feel confused. If recording "application
information" in a document implies an optional module, it means that
we need to change the ODD (or Schema) of the document when we want to
use application on this document. It is a strange position, since the
encoding definition will be affected by the processing of the document, no
only by the object you want to modelize in the document. It mean changing
the encoding definition of existing document for applying application. Is
it acceptable?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Ce message a ete envoye par IMP, grace a l'Universite Paris 10 Nanterre