Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: Mukul Gandhi [mailto:email@example.com]
>Namaste to you too!
Shukriya. Aapse milkar bahut khushii huii, Mukul ji.
>You seem to know Hindi (which is India's national
Mujhe hindii thik se nahii aatii. Yah sundar hai.
God willing, I will learn.
>I live in India, near Delhi at a place
>called Gurgaon, where hard core Hindi is spoken :)
Your experiences are much the same as mine.
As Tim Bray says, View Source is a primary reason
However, back on topic: as pointed out by others, HTML
might be called semi-structured, but I think the
concept of structure is misleading because markup
is structured by definition. OTOH, even highly
structured XML can be quite meaningless which is
why for XML and HTML work wonderfully well for the
humans and vary a lot for computers. Best practices
cover some but not all of the gaps. In my opinion,
naming is a harder and more important practice to
master than structuring. In many cases, when markup
fails semantically, naming is at fault. Naming is hard.
Best practices for naming are even harder to come by.
So while a relational database may be a rigorous
example for structure, I don't think that is what
the article cited is really about. If one is looking
for patterns, relationships, intentions, meaning, is
it easier to get that from a relational database or
from an XML instance? It depends, in my opinion,
on how predigested the content is, not the structure
although the structure is useful for finding an
answer where one already knows the question and
the structure. Questions are harder.
>Have a nice day Len :)
Bahut dhanyavad! Shubh kaammnaaye, Mukul jii!