Lists Home |
Date Index |
I'm talking about reuse of productions, in this
case, coordinate systems. You're talking about a
style of markup. One can use InkML as in the
draft and still be XML. You're quibbling about
the detail of the markup (the depth of naming,
thus, extractable categories). At that point,
our concerns converge. For example:
I'd like to see coordinate schemas because GIS
is the Swiss Army knife of information. If you
can map it, you can predict it more reliably.
If you can integrate your maps to your other
models, you have a very nice means to simulate.
Simulation is the bigger toolkit.
GIS is, in a depressed market, is predicted to
grow 8% this year. That's a healthy ecology
to be trading with. Shared productions helps
spread the wealth.
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
email@example.com (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>Still, it shouldn't be that hard to steal
>elements and attributes from other languages
>that use the same types of content. XML
>is there to make it easy to steal, and
>the consortia RF-policies are there to make
>it legal. Crikey, the SGMLers did it with
>complete abandon. They even wrote standards
>based on it (GML begat 28001 and HTML; 28001
>begat the Canadian 28001 and the European
>modular DTDs). Why shouldn't XML? Isn't
>that what namespaces do?
A long time ago I thought we were discussing the value or lack thereof
of lists of numbers and letters like:
1125 18432'23'43"7"-8 3-5+7 -3+6+2+6 8+3+6:T;+2+4:*T;+3+6+3-6:FF;
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
My point is that not using XML when you claim to be creating XML has
real costs that demand examination of whether using XML in the first
place is reasonable. InkML appears to my eye to flunk this test with