OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] RE: Seduced by Markup

Shifting gears a bit (though not much) I'd argue that understanding notational complexity is typically a sign that you have also mastered the rudiments of the conceptual complexities of a given piece of markup, whether that markup is XML, musical notation or mathematical notation. That doesn't mean that writing such complex content applies the same level of understanding - I've seen any number of mathematical papers, doctoral theses and the like that are overly complex because the author has not fully grokked the conceptual underpinnings of the piece, and so resorts to formalism to express himself rather than trying to keep the content as simple as possible while still providing the minimal necessary notation. I believe this has a direct corollary in both music and textual markup.

Kurt Cagle
Invited Expert, XForms Working Group, W3C
Managing Editor, XMLToday.org

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Alexander Johannesen <alexander.johannesen@gmail.com> wrote:
Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@propylon.com> wrote:
> Yes indeed, but why is it that so many people never learn to read the
> notation?

All metaphors and allegories aside about the complexity of notation,
I've always thought the main reason a lot of people haven't learned to
read musical notation ... is that they've never had the *need* to
learn to read the notation? Unless you want to be a professional
musician, and even then in some genres, notation isn't needed. Even an
amateur like me can enjoy the crap out of Bach's mass in B without so
much as knowing the signature of the music or how quivers are notated
or the tempo is noted.

In fact, it has to be said that markup is hence so much more readable
than musical notation, for nothing more than the linguistic hints and
semantics of element names and attributes; at least they are spelled
out in a less ambiguous way than, say, every programming language out
there where the tiniest semiotic sign is paramount to the
interpretation of the code.

Actually, I only have one gripe about XML markup specifically, and
that is the lack of commonly used HTML entities out of the box; it has
deterred a many developer away from "something written for the web,
but isn't even HTML compatible?!"



 Project Wrangler, SOA, Info Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
 http://shelter.nu/blog  |  google.com/+AlexanderJohannesen
 http://xsiteable.org  |  http://www.linkedin.com/in/shelterit


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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS