[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
clbullar@ingr.com (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>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:
Sorry, Len, but with your use of that word "quibbling", our interests
suddenly diverged right before you hoped they'd come together. You
showed your lack of concern for the issues that I find most useful in a
way that's even blunter than what I'd previously interpreted as a
mysterious wandering off-topic.
As for InkML, I'm happy to work with systems that don't mark every
single atom up - that's why I did all that work on Regular
Fragmentations. I'm not happy to see committees creating opaque new
syntaxes in the context of what's supposedly an XML project. That seems
bizarre, whatever committee-think justifications you develop to justify
such behavior.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
