[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Simon St. Laurent]
>Given the choice of conversations, I'll stick to the strange little world
of characters and
>markup rather than striving to build global meaning.
I'd like to see fans of global meaning, Knowledge Technologists etc. take a
look at
something like MS Word.
1 - If MS Word had a published schema+documentation, would the semantics of
WordML be known? Answer: not even close.
2 - How much of the elaboration of the semantics of WordML is
in MS Word - the application - as opposed to WordML - the schema +
documentation?
There comes a point - and Walter Perry has been saying it for a long time -
when the
meaning of a piece of XML exists solely in the imperative logic of a
particular process
and nowhere else.
Sad, but true. Published schemas are a big help (please can we have
documentation
for WordML) but they ain't the whole story by any means.
The never-ending quest for perfect import/export filters from word
processors is an
interesting microcosm of the shared meaning problem. In my opinion, there will
never be perfect import/export filtering without a common rendering model
and that
seems very, very far away in WP/DTP land.
I really don't understand why MS don't publishing the schema for WordML. As
I've
said in this post, its not like it will give away the *meaning* of WordML :-)
Sean
http://seanmcgrath.blogspot.com
|
