Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- To: email@example.com
- Date: 11 Feb 2000 17:08:03 -0500
> ** Original Sender: Len Bullard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> > Groves are hard for people like me because they are abstract.
> And by working examples, current problems, and pending opportunities,
> this thread is devoted to changing that by showing they aren't
> that abstract, they are just named weirdly.
I'm not even sure the name is so weird. Granted, I haven't been following
this topic (ahem) religiously, but so far, my initial reaction to the name doesn't
seem too far afield. What's a grove, I wondered? Well, in the natural world,
it's a collection of trees - and we all know what trees are. Say, "tree" has a
specific meaning in the programming field, not to mention the realm of markup
- you don't suppose the name "grove" was chosen to represent a collection of
tree-structured thingies, do you? But then I said, naah, that'd be way too simple
a concept for all these movers and shakers to have such a rough time with it.
Please, tell me there's more hideousness to the concept than that. ;)
> > The problem for groves is marketing,
> Not yet. The problem first is for us to prove to ourselves
> and the rest of the list the utility. The way is to use
> them and apply them here in examples until we are all
> conversant. Until there is an AHA from the rest of the
> markup community, then our biggest problem is the obscurity
> of the descriptions. SGML was once treated in the same
> light. As long as we dealt exclusively in the language
> of generic identifiers, notation declarations, document
> type definitions, top-forward parsing, and so forth,
> the language of The SGML Way, we lost a lot of ground.
> Standards are written that way for a reason. Selah,
> but as soon as we relaxed and quit beating people up
> for saying "tagname", we got a bit further. We need a
> slightly relaxed and intuitive parlance for open
> discussions. We don't have to invent groves. That's
> done. We want to apply them. If we can get that
> AHA, using the fifty word or less descriptions, we
> have a shot at that.
So - have I hit the AHA without realizing it, or should I just hush up
and pay closer attention to the thread?
> Moreover, I am deeply concerned that as the web
> continues to get harder to build for, we will lose something
> we need: new blood, artistic talent, worthy art, all because
> we made it too damm hard. Then the artists have no recourse
> but to surrender to the Sonys and Microsofts of the world
> who will give them all the candy they can eat as long as
> they send the coupons back.
I must confess, this is one thing I don't get: why does XML need
an API? I mean, here I am handcoding XHTML transmogrifications,
and I still have no idea why I should/could get interested in SAX. I'm
not writing a program; I'm authoring content. Text, plus some markup
to indentify what this part is and what that object is. What am I not
getting about the process; where does the API come in? Why do I
need a DOM, and who's writing to it...and what are they writing?
Rev. Robert L. Hood | http://rev-bob.gotc.com/
Get Off The Cross! | http://www.gotc.com/