On 11/17/13 10:38 AM, David Lee wrote:
> <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.
This is a good idea. I've wondered for a while when the next phase
transition would come along - first SGML -> XML, then XML -> ????.
I see some good hints in MicroXML and FtanML in particular, but it's
probably time or past it. I don't think there will be quite the same
uptake. XML benefited simply from saying "these things are actually
possible" at a time when that was still a surprise.
Still, it makes good sense to me. (As I already noted, I avoid talking
about XML specifically in my own markup conversations unless there's
good reason to bring it up.)
Thanks,
--
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/
