[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
RE: Make implicit structures explicit
- From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
- To: "xml-dev@lists.xml.org" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 22:32:01 +0000
Hi Folks,
Thank you very much for your interesting responses.
Your responses have surprised me.
Consider this mathematical equation:
3 + 2 * 6
I think most people would agree that it is useful (even best practice) to add symbols to that equation to make explicit the order of evaluation:
3 + (2 * 6)
How is that different from adding symbols to make explicit the order of aircraft transitions:
<aircraft-approach-procedure>
<transition step="2">Enter glide slope</transition>
<transition step="3">Correct for wind conditions</transition>
<transition step="1">Contact control tower</transition>
</aircraft-approach-procedure>
Aren't both examples of upconversion (making implicit information explicit)?
Isn't upconversion considered valuable?
In fact, isn't upconversion considered to be an unstated, fundamental tenet of XML?
/Roger
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]