[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan wrote:
> Right enough, but I've never understood *why* you thought it was so important.
> Your general scheme of things would work equally well if there were no syntactic
> agreements at all.
It would not work 'equally well': there would in many, if not most cases, be a
great deal more work to get to the point given ab initio by a priori agreements. I
have never disputed that building up on every single occasion of processing from
very loosely connected pieces is a lot of work, yet I do not insist on that work for
its own sake. XML 1.0 syntax is the price of admission to the party, and as I am not
entirely an anarchist I do not dispute that there should be such a liminal hurdle.
The goal is not to set the constraints so tight that autonomous processes could not
exercise the full expression of their particular expertise. For the cases which I
have examined--including processing concurrent markup, for which my methods are not
the same as Patrick's--XML 1.0 is an acceptable balance between the work-saving
convenience provided by agreements and the requisite freedom for initiative.
Respectfully,
Walter Perry
|
