RE: [xml-dev] Webelo 2.0: The Mythed and Mythstery (WAS RE: [xml-dev] Yo

["Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

TEI says:

>Well.  To me, the topic of the video was "Handwritten text" vs "Digital
>text".

It starts like that but wanders off into other media.  If you stop with
hypertext, that is correct, but the Internet contains many resource types
and they aren't all text.  Increasingly, the frequency of non-text-wrapper
based formats are changing the interactions of the people, eg, the
anticipated by some but surprising to others return of real-time 3D and
gaming applications.  Do these fit into a 'demo of hypertext'?  Not really.

A different model is at work here, and not one which fits the HTML-spawned
page metaphor without a force-fit.   The page metaphor was already archaic
and web 2.0 heartily demonstrates that it is running out of steam as a force
for innovation.  In fact, web 2.0 as the interactive web is just a repeat of
everything we have seen since the days of Englebart and Sutherland, just
slower and harder to build.   The model at work is emergent controls over
content, not separation of form from content.   Tagging is opinion-making.
That is easy.  Opinion sorting is the real challenge and that is not a
declarative system.  So XML + CSS + XQuery + SQL + nScript ++++++ is not a
very simple system.

That people are the sorting controls, I can buy into that.  I just don't
think it anything revolutionary or very life-changing.  It is the same as it
ever was.

>There Digital text win because suport links and is easy morphing
>powers. Text is a good vehicle for ideas, so better text is important.

Use a voice recognition system to create text.  Is the unilinearity of it
still as important?  That it is finally rendered to digital text also makes
a bit of hay of the separation of content and format.    Is the hand-to-eye
habit of writing more important given the difficulties of mastering
dictation as an instrument of composition?

>PHPBB alike forums are voice tradition. Camp fires for hunter tales.
>This is like 100.000 years old, so will not go away soon :D

>Yea, voice tradition is often inaccurate..  and retard.

When it was practiced, it was quite good and human abilities to memorize and
recite were outstanding.   The medium reshapes the skills.  That is
short-cycle evolution at work.

>People lean that way. A book is not enough, need other guy voice (the
>teacher) even if the teacher make mistakes, seems a better way. Maybe
>because information generated by the teacher (or the guy on the Web
>2.0 forum) is customized for the receiver, removing redundant data,
>adding related info, personal experience, etc.

Different people learn different ways.  Having multiple means is good but
also topic-dependent.  Learning the ABCs and learning to fly a jet-fighter
both benefit by repetition but that may be as far as that goes.  Lecture is
good if followed by practice.  No doubt.

>This list has experts, very good experts. So is a aristocracy, a
>meritocracy aristocracy. Can be dificult to like something the mass
>create If you are a expert, but take my word here: is a amazing cool
>achievement.

This list has people who practice.  Then when one goes to Barnes and Nobles,
whereas most of the names on that XML shelf were once people who's names
were on this list, that isn't the case anymore.  I wonder about that.

len