Re: [xml-dev] Lessons learned from the XML experiment

["Timothy W. Cook" <tim@mlhim.org>]

I must agree with Hans-Juergen.

I have no idea what kind of 'junk' gets passed around in the
publishing world.  But XML DOES provide the ability to be very
specific about data.  Maybe it is too forgiving and allows too much
optionality.

I have no idea why all the 'yikes' comments followed his comment.

--Tim


On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Hans-Juergen Rennau <hrennau@yahoo.de> wrote:
> Michael Kay wrote:
>
> "Namespaces account for a very significant chunk of user difficulties with
> XML, a great deal of the complexity of specifications like XSD and XSLT, a
> similar proportion of the complexity of APIs, and a vast amount of the code
> in implementations of these specs. And they aren't necessary! The world
> could have managed perfectly well with a convention where the element name
> <org.w3c.svg> means "in this subtree, I'm using SVG element names"."
>
> Michael, you are not serious, are you? Would you suggest that users start to
> parse names and, depending on whether the name string matches some
> "convention", infer that something means an apple, rather than a pear?
>
> My view: XML stands for precision, relentless, mathematical precision. XML
> allows us to distinguish and locate items in an unambiguous way without any
> respect to the number of competing items and current "conventions". XML
> allows us to integrate information from any number of sources in a reliable
> way, as it relies on URIs - document URIs & qualified names. XML creates a
> new dimension of what is possible in terms of information processing - in
> particular transformation. XML is not a syntax, but a way of thinking about
> information, which scales globally. The problem at this point in time is the
> lack of language - there has not yet been established a common language
> which captures the new possibilities. People can't think what they have
> neither words for, nor images arising from intense experience.
>
> Hans-Juergen
>
>
>
> Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com> schrieb am 20:47 Mittwoch, 13.November
> 2013:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net> wrote:
>
> Yeah this is why in XML, and even more broadly in data I advocate (following
> Rick Jelliffe's lead, of course) validation as annotation rather than as
> assertion of axioms.
>
>
>
>
> Kurt Cagle
> Invited Expert, XForms Working Group, W3C
> Managing Editor, XMLToday.org
> kurt.cagle@gmail.com
> 443-837-8725
>
>
>



-- 
MLHIM VIP Signup: http://goo.gl/22B0U
============================================
Timothy Cook, MSc           +55 21 94711995
MLHIM http://www.mlhim.org
Like Us on FB: https://www.facebook.com/mlhim2
Circle us on G+: http://goo.gl/44EV5
Google Scholar: http://goo.gl/MMZ1o
LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/timothywaynecook