OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Just a Little Explanaton for Veering (RE: Blueberry/Unicode/ XML)

> As such, Don's comments about "self-assigned" concerns could not possibly
> apply to me.
> Undoubtedly Don includes himself in his approbation and will not say
> anything more on the subject, being himself "self-assigned."

Yes to both.  I typically include myself in the group I blast.  Although I
was born
and raised in Korea, I still consider myself to be self-assigned and guilty
patronizing fellow Koreans.  Self-interest does not preclude self-sacrifice

It still remains whether Chinese government hiring someone like you to
X and Y are possible to do in XML with Chinese language, represents:

  a) the will of the people (sorry, users)
  b) the right design decision over time

> On the substance of Don's comment, when markup languages did not support
> native-language markup, they were never popular in China/Korea/Japan.  Now
> that they do, they are more popular.

I beg to differ.  XML is popular in China/Korea/Japan because they are
familiar with HTML and of all the hoopla we are making in the Western
over it as the next Holy Grail.  They have tinkered with Chinese-enabled
Forth and
other languages, but they have accepted limitations of C, Java, and Perl
any significant complaint.  I haven't heard anyone complaining why the new
identifiers can't be Chinese.  Why is it such an issue in XML names?

> One of the great reasons is learning: people can learn using examples in
> familiar words.  If we look at books on XML from Japan or China, the ones
> written in Japan (e.g. Okui-san's books) use kanji element names.  The
> learner can concentrate on the substance without being diverted
> by English:
> they will not be confused as to what is a keyword and what is a
> situation-dependent name.  There is an advantage in those examples being
> real.

I agree with this.  My position is that human is adaptable enough to
surmount most
problems yet will loudly complain if given a chance.  As you and others have
pointed out, 'Direct Representation' is obviously desirable, but the cost is
Representation'.  I truely wonder how disturbed Chinese collegues are by the
infamous <A> tag and how the right balance between Direct and Common
Representation can be found in any given domain.

> Where are the calls from third-world countries:
> "Don't make technology easier for us please"?

You must surely know that over-sea phonecalls are too expensive
for silly prank calls.

Seriously, Rick.  You and I agree on many, if not all, of the problems.  We
just disagree
on the solutions.


Don Park