Re: [xml-dev] The Allure of Gothic Markup

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

On 8/18/13 4:57 PM, David Lee wrote:
> My personal (today) opinion is that the Gothic Romance is over
> romantisized. Those "flying buttresses" were added decades or
> centuries later because the cathedral was going to fall down, but
> later were viewed as part of the art ...

I don't believe I actually mentioned flying buttresses in the paper or 
in the talk.

I do, however, find modern technology severely over-romanticized...

> Plus comparing architecture to markup I think is a catwalk.
> Architecture has to follow natures laws ... those are implicit ...
> The building has to hold up to gravity and decay and use. Those
> things are a given.  But to compare to XML with schema ... I would
> argue that Schema is the natural law. It imposes those things which
> have to be upheld  ( the building still stands under gravity,  it can
> hold a congregation of X, it has a ceiling hight of Y , the walls
> dont fall down, it costs less then $X)   It keeps the tempature above
> YdegC .. It doesnt stink of mold.

If schema is the natural law, you may need to go back and reread Thomas 
Aquinas.

> To claim an equivalence to gothic architecture and schema-less XML to
> me seems nonsensical.

I suggest that you might want to actually read the paper.  It's not just 
about the Stones of Venice themselves, but about how they were made.

> Surely there is a range of constraints .... but to claim gothic
> architecture had no constraints is just plain silly. If it had no
> constraints it would be a Escher painting, not a building.

I never claim it lacks constraints.  (Nothing exists without 
constraints, actually.)  I suggest that it offers much more freedom to 
those working with it.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/