[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 17:14:07 -0700
Sorry about bad line breaks in previous message. Here is a smoothed
> 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
> 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
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
Seriously, Rick. You and I agree on many, if not all, of the problems. We
just disagree on the solutions.