xml-dev - RE: Another Question

[johns@syscore.com (John F. Schlesinger)]

Andrew Watt wrote:

"But confusing naming of entities is nothing new in computing. Think of the
notion of a "tree" with a "root" at the top and "leaf" nodes further down.
Where did these computer scientists study biology? :)"

What about a mouse whose tail sprouts from between its ears?

Yours,
John F Schlesinger
SysCore Solutions
212 619 5200 x 219
917 886 5895 Mobile

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xml-dev@xml.org [mailto:owner-xml-dev@xml.org]On Behalf Of
AndrewWatt2000@aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 3:15 AM
To: xml-dev@xml.org
Subject: Re: Another Question



Andrew Gorman wrote:
> I'm quite new to the world of XML, and am doing research to learn more
about
>  the language.  It seems to me that XML can be adapted to whatever usage
>  required, and it seems that it is renamed each time, or better put, a
prefix
>  is added.  If it is specifically used for advertising, it is called
adxml,
>  commerce is cxml.  Is this a common thing? And does this make it
difficult
>  to be viewed by other people? or is it that regardless of the prefix, the
>  language doesn't change, and it is just its intended use that marks the
>  difference.

Andrew,

The first point is that XML is not really a "language" at all. It is a
meta-language, a "language" for defining other languages.

So, in a sense, to call XML the "eXtensible Markup Language" is misleading,
since in virtually all other settings a "language" has a defined (although
frequently evolving) vocabulary. I think there would have been great
benefits
if W3C had called "XML" the "eXtensible Markup Meta Language" (XMML) since
that would have more accurately reflected its true nature, IMHO.

The other languages, in vertical markets, would then reasonably have been
called languages conforming to the XMML standard.

Of course, in a sense, XML is not really "extensible" either. :) ... Except
as defined by W3C committees the XML standard is fixed. Other groups can
create languages or vocabularies conforming to the XML standard (loosely
often termed as "in XML").

But confusing naming of entities is nothing new in computing. Think of the
notion of a "tree" with a "root" at the top and "leaf" nodes further down.
Where did these computer scientists study biology? :)

You asked also about issues of display. In a sense it is that issue which is
being raised in the thread entitled "Why I dislike CSS". In these many
specialty languages the structure of the language does not (or should not)
change - it is still conformant (or should be) to the XML 1.0 W3C
Recommendation. They should all be capable of display equally well.

The problem raised by Amy Lewis about display is that CSS is not
XML-conformant and that the proposed XSL:FO standard is overly complex. With
some justification she suggests there is a need for a simpler display
technology which is XML-conformant.

You might wish to follow that discussion too.

Andrew Watt

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************