Lists Home |
Date Index |
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> Uche Ogbuji has a thoughtful (and thought-provoking) piece at:
AOL to this, Uche.
I would actually go beyond your point:
"Certainly, if you want your data to outlast your code, and to be more
portable to unforeseen, future uses, you would do well to lower your own
level of class consciousness. Strong data typing in XML tends to pigeonhole
data to specific tools, environments and situations. This often raises the
total cost of managing that data."
It is not just over time, but right now, between utterly dissimilar systems
whose only nexus is the internetwork, that communication is possible only by
instantiating a common syntax into locally idiosyncratic semantics at each
end of the conversation.
This is not the first example of the bohemians perfecting as art the very
tools which the science of the gentry lacked, but would require to achieve
ubiquity. In astronomy, engineering, and chemistry of the Renaissance key
pieces are supplied by alchemists, painters, dyers or poisoners. Consider
e.g. Palladio's sketches of ancient Roman construction, instantiated so
differently (and in the instantiation demanding entirely new mechanical
invention) in the local understandings of Rome, London and Washington, DC.
What, if anything, would have been built had he produced engineering field
office quality blueprints?