On 11/14/13 9:29 AM, Timothy W. Cook wrote:
> Certainty and accuracy always have boundaries. The problems arise when
> 'people' do not communicate those boundaries and make assumptions
> about meaning.
That doesn't sound remotely like:
------------------------------------
My view: XML stands for precision, relentless, mathematical precision.
XML allows us to distinguish and locate items in an unambiguous way
without any respect to the number of competing items and current
"conventions"....
XML is not a syntax, but a way of thinking about information, which
scales globally.
------------------------------------
I think we may have found boundaries and assumptions in the current
conversation.
> An example is the concept that is pervasive in the XML community that
> element names should have meaning. Wrong, you are guaranteed to have
> semantic conflicts in interpretation.
>
> So it is the people not XML that has problems. Other than as I said,
> the possibility that XML is too lax. Which I am sure is one reason
> why it became so popular.
>
> People are lazy and ass-u-me too much.
Yes indeed. They assume they have tools that let them achieve
"relentless mathematical precision".
(Though Hans-Juergen is clearly not lazy!)
Thanks,
--
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/
