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

[David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:21 AM, John Cowan <johnwcowan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Please direct me to the relevant source that refutes that XML was
>> "designed for nodes".

Hi John,

This is quite far off-topic.

> Asking for a source to demonstrate a pure negative is not reasonable.

I was not asking for a demonstration of a negative i.e. "Prove that
XML was not designed for nodes". I was asking for *any* evidence that
the claim did not hold. Once again, I made this claim in response to a
series of absurd claims by Uche (which still go unaddressed) and I
really have no interest in defending it. Simon did a fine job of
supplying some evidence that Uche could have supplied to show that my
statement was overbroad. I am happy making (and defending) the claim
"XML was designed for elements".

> If I claimed that one of the purposes of the American Revolution was to make
> Alexander Hamilton the king of America in the place of George III, could you
> point me to a source that refutes that claim?  I don't think so.  And yet
> the claim is absurd.

I could easily refute the claim that it was *the* purpose just as
Simon easily refuted the claim that "XML was designed for nodes".

I am really quite surprised that a group of otherwise logical people
have such a hard time understanding that the statements "XML was
designed for nodes" and "XML was designed for elements" have nearly
zero distinction with respect to the question of "Can element omission
be used to model optional elements?"

If you'll excuse me, I will now return to basking in the
unsubstantiated disrespect and condescension that seems to be
prevalent in this niche community.

David

> --
> GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at
> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures