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

[Don Park <donpark@docuverse.com>]

> 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
of
patronizing fellow Koreans.  Self-interest does not preclude self-sacrifice
nor
reflection.

It still remains whether Chinese government hiring someone like you to
ensure
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
already
familiar with HTML and of all the hoopla we are making in the Western
Hemisphere
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
without
any significant complaint.  I haven't heard anyone complaining why the new
C#
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
'Common
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.

Best,

Don Park
Docuverse