Re: [xml-dev] What Is XML ? WAS : RE: [xml-dev] [OT] Re: [xml-dev] Lesso

["Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>]

An excellent insight into semantics (and the absoluteness or otherwise 
thereof) and context :-)

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
C++ tools for C++ programmers, http://codalogic.com
Read & write XML in C++, http://www.xml2cpp.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com>
To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2013 3:38 PM
Subject: [xml-dev] What Is XML ? WAS : RE: [xml-dev] [OT] Re: [xml-dev] 
Lessons learned from the XML experiment


> I have resisted the vast temptation to add to this thread ... being at a 
> conference may have helped,
> but also the also the many deviations from civil conversations into areas 
> I didn't want to get dragged into ...
>
> But I will drag this once ... perhaps because its Sunday AM and my brain 
> is saturated with AWS sessions I need to clear it out :)
>
> What Is XML ?
> I see a strong disconnect here, very opinionated, and in my mind *both 
> right*.
>
> On the one hand:
> 1) "XML is precisely what the specs say it is, no less and no more".
> This is strictly true, and I respect this immensely.  In fact 90%+ of the 
> time it's also the more useful perspective
> because most questions 'about XML' are about precisely this 'What do the 
> specs say is really a proxy for "Why doesn't my code work"
>
> But, I beg to offer a different perspective, one Hans is hinting at
> And here I will admit I am mis-using a term intentionally which I actively 
> dislike in general but allow me this for a moment  before I revise it
>
> 2) "XML is a powerful abstraction that allows people and technologies to 
> interoperate at a high level using a well-defined data model (XDM), where
> the text serialization is but one representation and not necessarily the 
> important one."
>
> Which is strictly untrue but I argue its useful and the  bone of 
> contention is not the concept but rather the terminology.
> "XML" != "XML" in these statements ....
>
> And while this is a technical audience misusing precise terms does cause 
> confusion and contention.
> So maybe using a different term would be more useful ? I dont know if 
> there *pre exists* a precise previously defined term for what Hans is 
> suggesting (#2).
> But that doesn't make the concept bad.    I think its a very powerful 
> concept that was allowed to grow precisely because there was no previous 
> word for it.
>
> So maybe it might be useful to make up a new term for this concept so it 
> doesn't get confused with #1 ...
> Barring that, may I suggest we consider, that in some contexts "XML" means 
> different things *intentionally* ... to different people and different 
> conversations.
> I know Thats confusing ... but it might make conversations easier to 
> understand if one doesn't pre-assume "XML" means "The XML as defined by 
> the spec".
> <duck serious arrows and flame throwers>
>
> So to avoid the arrow holes and charred skin ... maybe its useful to use a 
> different term then "XML" for #2 ... I dont know what that might be.
>
> To this day I think  Physics suffers from using the word "particles" well 
> after we discovered they weren't tiny balls of solid rock.
> In the case of Physics the  term has evolved to take on the meaning of 
> whatever the latest thingy we want ...
> In the case of XML ... the term seems stuck with the spec definition even 
> though its used in a much wider context ... like say "Coke"
> For precision Thats probably a good thing, but for communication of ideas 
> I suggest it is not.
>
> -David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> David A. Lee
> dlee@calldei.com<mailto:dlee@calldei.com>
> http://www.xmlsh.org