[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] The subsetting has begun
- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:54:53 -0500
- In-reply-to: <E18o7HF-0004nK-00@calvin.frontwire.com>
- Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
- References: <004101c2ddcb$d68c3e50$6501a8c0@cavnarjohnson> <E18o7HF-0004nK-00@calvin.frontwire.com>
- User-agent: KMail/1.4.3
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 02:31 pm, Alaric B. Snell wrote:
> Even if you don't *have* to base your processing around the tree structure,
> as SAX doesn't, the tree structure is still there.
Only if you interpret it as such.
I would argue that documents, in general, *do* have some form of structure in
the mind of the author. I would also say that in many cases, that structure,
or large parts of it, are understood by the receiver. I don't think you can
claim it as an intrinsic part of the data without assuming a model of
interpretation.
Here's an interesting experiment: take an XML document in all of it's
angle-bracketed glory, and show it to a 10-year old that has not been exposed
to HTML/XML. Ask them what they see. Do the same thing with a nicely
formatted letter. If you feel really ambitious, try that with 100 random
bodies you meet in the street.
|
