Lists Home |
Date Index |
John Cowan wrote:
> AFAIU he wants to keep the freedom to manipulate incoming data at the syntax
> level, and not be bound by a "universal" data-binding engine that disappears the
> XML in favor of some specific instantiation of it.
Quite. Once again the distinction between constraints in the lexical space and those
in the value space. The latter are in practice implementable only by local process
against specific local instantiations. The former *can* be enforced across the gulf
separating autonomous nodes. As John illustrates with the case of servers, it is
occasionally useful to enforce such constraints as a condition of realizing an
outcome for which there are, in fact shared or similar expectations between data
creator and data recipient (particularly when both expect that the recipient's own
output will be returned to the initial creator).
> I think his concerns are overblown, but not unreasonable in principle.