RE: different communities

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

At 09:19 AM 2/9/01 +0100, Jan Vegt wrote:
>If we think of the problem as solvable how does it break down?

Problem: you see problems as 'solvable'.  I see problems as 'addressable',
but not globablly 'solvable'.

>What is fundamental?
>Has it been solved in other domains, and in useful ways?

It's typically solved by fragmentation - allowing communities and
organizations to develop systems which meet their needs, not a grand
unified vision.  Solutions which work (freight containers) are often
standardized after the fact, but often address only parts of problems.

In a sense, XML is out there, and various communities and organizations are
partaking of it as they see fit.  Some like well-formed markup and don't
care for the rest, others find DTDs add a useful layer of description, and
others find DTDs are infinitely broken because they lack '&'.

Markup is about the only fundamental thing I can find in all of this, and I
think most people are reasonably content with that.

>Can we simplify?

Sure, if you want to let people solve their own problems rather than
forcing them into a single vision of problem-solving.

>Can we re-express into solvable problem space.

Locally addressable problem spaces, yes.  Globally solvable problem spaces?
 Maybe some of the locally addressed problems will prove to have similar
solutions, but I wouldn't count on that producing unified answers.

>Check : problem? Different granularities of information presentation
>devices?
>Check : problem? 'lower level' Path versus type constraints?

Both problems, but again the answers to these questions don't necessarily
emerge from a single set of guidelines.

Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly and Associates
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books