Re: [xml-dev] "The syntax view" was Re: [xml-dev] [OT] Re: [xml-dev]Less

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

Thanks for your reply Simon.  Now I understand.

--Tim

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Simon St.Laurent
<simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:
> On 11/17/13 3:34 AM, Timothy W. Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> My interest in markup is not purely technological, but rather about
>>> markup's
>>> being an almost unique intersection of humans and computers. Markup is a
>>> set
>>> of tools that lets humans gets directly in the information flow.
>>> Computers
>>> are certainly still involved, but their role is minimized to the extent
>>> possible.
>>
>>
>> I think I understand your perspective.  Except, possibly what you
>> intend to mean regarding 'information flow'.  Am I correct in that
>> this is in regards from one person to another person via computerized
>> text?
>
>
> Not necessarily directly, but "among people, with computers in the middle"
> seems accurate.
>
> (There are people using XML for strictly computer to computer
> communications, like sensors and controls, but I see no good reason now to
> celebrate bloat.)
>
>
>> So, if I am correct in seeing your perspective that the purpose of XML
>> (in your perspective) is to delineate (markup?) textual content into
>> sections?  Also, that XML in its current and probable future state can
>> do this for you in the way that you choose to use it?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>> Can you *PLEASE* tell me how the fact that XML has other components
>> that addresses other uses cases outside your own use case, harms you
>> or your work in any way?
>>
>> IOW: If you are not forced to use XSD or namespaces to accomplish your
>> goals with XML.  Why are you so adamantly against them when they are
>>
>> useful to other people in different use cases.
>
>
> Well, for starters, I get to waste hours of time explaining to people who've
> been brainwashed into thinking that XSD and namespaces are the One True Way
> of XML that there are other options.  Even here, that's a surprising
> ordinary case.  (Why am I writing this for sixteenth or so time on a Sunday
> morning?)
>
> Those tools and the lessons they've taught make it extremely difficult to
> convince people to take another look, especially when the lessons they've
> taught people are to run screaming away from XML and not look back.
>
> For a while, I figured that the XSD/Namespaces/etc. stuff would be fine,
> just not for me.  Other people clearly do have different use cases. Then,
> thanks to my weird position as a writer, editor, and known critic, I had
> lots of people telling me about how those tools were seen as the ruin of
> entire projects.  The stories added up too well.
>
> I heard similar stories about XSLT, but at least in those cases I could
> _usually_ identify where XSLT had been the wrong tool for the job.
> XSD/Namespaces stories were reliably about specifications gone brittle,
> priorities set badly by people seeing different pieces of the same schemas,
> and waterfall processes that made it hard to correct these issues.
>
> That doesn't mean there aren't use cases where XSD/Namespaces/etc. do apply
> and can succeed.  Nor does it mean that my case is right.  It does, however,
> make me marvel that the folks pushing XSD and Namespaces go right on doing
> it as if they weren't selling toxic waste.
>
> So yes - an answer you probably won't like.  XSD and Namespaces have made
> the XML ecosystem toxic.  "It works for me" gets repeated here like "Every
> day in every way I get better and better" gets repeated by the
> self-hypnotists of the Coue method.
>
> That's a lot of why I talk about markup in most contexts, and avoid talking
> about XML unless it's to an XML audience or reached that level of
> specificity.
>
>
>> I have asked questions on this list about XML technologies that are
>> specified and are in common use across domains.  Hoping to get answers
>> from people with more experience in XML.  Like you, I know my domain.
>> I can make the decision whether or not XML technologies are a good
>> fit, if I can get technological NOT philosophical answers.
>
>
> If you don't want philosophical answers, perhaps you should ask your
> programs instead of people?
>
> Take a look at your foundations again.  They're getting more brittle all the
> time.
>
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Simon St.Laurent
> http://simonstl.com/
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php



-- 
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