[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rick Jelliffe wrote,
> From: "Miles Sabin" <miles@milessabin.com>
> > I'm obviously missing something, because of the ten design goals
> > listed at the the top of the XML REC only one, "XML documents
> > should be human-legible and reasonably clear", speaks to humanity.
> > The bulk of the remainder address automated processing and the
> > needs of programmers.
>
> Surely a single simple statement like that is enough? I don't think
> you can weigh thase goals as if they are the results of a competition
> where machines win 9:1 over humans.
Enough for what? Simon appeared to be saying that the needs of human
authors and readers trumped machines and the authors of processing
software. I don't think there's any evidence of that in the XML 1.0's
design goals.
Even if you think that's wrong, it still doesn't mean that the blame can
be particularly attributed to RDF or Namespaces: XML 1.0 wasn't ever
all that human-friendly.
Cheers,
Miles
|
