Re: [xml-dev] Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting X

[Greg Hunt <greg@firmansyah.com>]

Len,

The point is to maintain the alignment of the programmers with the business domain that provides the context for sharing (things that are never shared, either at a point in time or over time by being handed from individual or group to individual or group, are not the issue here, in the absence of any sharing Intercal plus JCL could be made to work for some classes of problem).  The language and culture in the business domain are the only things that over time resist the entropy that developers naturally bring to the design and maintenance of shared data structures.

Greg

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:12 AM, <cbullard@hiwaay.net> wrote:

The history of XML from day 1 has been about the convenience of programmers or near-programmers, the infamous DePH.

It took marketing to make it about customer needs.  The embedded context is in those text nodes that we mostly ignore.

len

Quoting Greg Hunt <greg@firmansyah.com>:

Isn't this the example in point?  The world revolves around developers and
the geometry gets a bit strange when there is more than one (well, more
than one distinct developer culture).  The XML that matters is the XML that
is shared and then it is embedded in some business context with its own
language and culture and needs to conform with the language and culture to
remain easily shareable.  If its not shared, then the tools are what
matter.