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] KML is very extensible ... but why?

I like these, though I think autocorrect has done some strange things.  I'll reply as I think it it was meant, and let me know if I'm wrong in my guesses about the questions in addition to my answers.  (Which fits the topic perfectly, actually!)

On 4/23/2018 12:31 AM, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
Two quickies.

Shared synth good, shared semantics bad. But does a schema really special syntax?
This reminds me of an angry comment from someone after a Walter Perry talk long ago.

"Doesn't he know that today's semantics are tomorrow's syntax?"

It can work like that, but I don't think it has for a while. Perhaps we're just in a lull.  I read schemas as an effort to make that kind of shift, but I don't see that shift happening.  Or, for now, profitable.

Does a schema share semantics or just advertise them?
Too many people on too many projects have claimed that sharing (and standardizing) the meaning of things is the point of schemas.  It seems to work better for gathering funding.

While people are certainly willing to pay for advertising, I don't think that is what they often claim to be doing here.  Worse, we seem to live in a world in which we can give people advertisements and they mistake them for stern reality.

Schemas can absolutely be useful, but our tendency to make them into prisons also makes them dangerous. (And yes, people say that XML syntax is similarly imprisoning.  I tend to disagree about that part, but don't worry much about convincing them any more.)


[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