Re: [xml-dev] Excellent quote from Len Bullard

[gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>>
>> Today I was reviewing some notes and came across a statement Len Bullard
>> made long ago.
>>
>> It is worth repeating often:
>>
>>         Markup does not apply semantics.
>>         Semantics are applied to the markup.
>>
>>                         Len Bullard

At 2013-10-11 12:06 +0200, Labu Ela Fuma ¿Ke Fuuuu Mala Buela? wrote:
> Whats the meaning or deep sense of it? Is somewhat lost on me.
When you see the element "<b>" do you immediately think of "bold"?

If so, then for you the markup is applying the semantics.

However, the proper way to look at "<b>" is to 
see that all it is is a piece of information that 
has been given the label "<b>".  It has no 
further meaning other than having been labeled.

If I choose to send this markup to a browser, the 
browser applies the semantics of boldness to the 
content labeled "<b>" and you see the content in a bold weight.

If I choose to send this markup to a chemical 
composition analysis tool, it might choose to 
apply the semantic of "Boron" to the content of the element.

It is a very long (both long-time and lengthy) 
debate in our industry about whether or not 
SGML/XML *does* semantics as some people 
think.  I am in the camp of XML doesn't do 
semantics, XML only labels a hierarchical arrangement of information.

The phrase I've used for many years with my 
students is "Meaning is in the eye of the 
beholder of SGML/XML", as I get to choose 
whatever I want to choose as the meaning of 
information that is marked up as a particular 
element.  Of course interoperability is enhanced 
(though not guaranteed) if I interpret the same 
meaning of the content as intended by the sender 
of the document, but that doesn't impose on me 
that I have to consider the same meaning.  I 
could freely choose to look at the data in a 
totally different way if that suits me, perhaps 
in order to glean a different kind of result than 
what was intended.  And I think "<b>" is a good 
example:  certainly the original HTML said that 
"<b>" is for a bold font, but if all I want is 
emphasis applied to the content, I could choose 
to colour the text, change the size of the text, 
ring a audio bell, or do anything I want with the 
text.  There is nothing in XML that says I have 
to present the text in bold, that is only what 
was intended by the author of the document when 
they chose that label for the content thinking of HTML interpretation.

Len's elegant quote sums up the view of many, 
including myself.  It must be his musical talent 
that gives him the wordsmithing tools to dream up 
such a poetic expression of a technical concept.

I hope this helps.

. . . . . . . . . Ken


--
Public XSLT, XSL-FO, UBL & code list classes: Melbourne, AU May 2014 |
Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training |
Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm |
Crane Softwrights Ltd.            http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/ |
G. Ken Holman                   mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com |
Google+ profile: https://plus.google.com/116832879756988317389/about |
Legal business disclaimers:    http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal |