[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Just a Little Explanaton for Veering (RE: Blueberry/Unicode/ XML)
- From: Don Park <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:03:19 -0700
> 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
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
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
I agree with this. My position is that human is adaptable enough to
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
on the solutions.