[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
robin.berjon@expway.fr (Robin Berjon) writes:
>I agree that text and serialization don't cut it well, but what do you
>find wrong with markup or XML? They both seem fine to me.
They both feel overloaded, mostly. XML in particular is often thrown
around carelessly by people talking about the infoset. Markup is less
abused, I guess, though it still seems tarred. I'd like markup to mean
working close to the textual representation, but I've had enough fights
around that word to know that some people see it differently.
It wouldn't really matter, except that I'm trying to establish a
distinction, so I don't want to leave readers confused if they came with
a different set of understandings.
(The purpose of the contrast is to explain what the infoset perspective
is, not the [MISSING WORD HERE] perspective, so I need to make sure the
contrast is pretty sharp. A few non-specialist test readers have
already complained that they didn't get it, which is why I brought the
question here.)
cwilper@cs.cornell.edu (Chris Wilper) writes:
>If you're steering away from "serialization", then I would suggest
>the term "concrete". Ironically, that may be too abstract for
>your purposes.
It is, but it'll be a good word to use elsewhere in the contrast.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
