[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Peter.Hunsberger@stjude.org (Hunsberger, Peter) writes:
>If you're not going to have semantics then why do you need syntax ?
It's not a question of whether things will have semantics - even things
supposedly without semantics tend to acquire meaning. It's a question
of what kind of value you get from standardizing semantics.
I see lots of value for standardizing a core syntax, and some value for
standardizing some semantics. I see negative return on efforts to
standardize semantics and semantic mechanisms generally.
(Locally, you're welcome to standardize all you want.)
The subject line of this message, though, suggests pretty strongly that
some folks see semantics as a way out of a syntactic trap. I believe
those folks are fooling themselves at best.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
