RE: The Power of Groves
> ** Original Sender: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...> > > Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > > > > Groves are hard for people like me because they are abstract. > > And by working examples, current problems, and pending opportunities, > this thread is devoted to changing that by showing they aren't > that abstract, they are just named weirdly. I'm not even sure the name is so weird. Granted, I haven't been following this topic (ahem) religiously, but so far, my initial reaction to the name doesn't seem too far afield. What's a grove, I wondered? Well, in the natural world, it's a collection of trees - and we all know what trees are. Say, "tree" has a specific meaning in the programming field, not to mention the realm of markup - you don't suppose the name "grove" was chosen to represent a collection of tree-structured thingies, do you? But then I said, naah, that'd be way too simple a concept for all these movers and shakers to have such a rough time with it. Wouldn't it? Please, tell me there's more hideousness to the concept than that. ;) > > The problem for groves is marketing, > > Not yet. The problem first is for us to prove to ourselves > and the rest of the list the utility. The way is to use > them and apply them here in examples until we are all > conversant. Until there is an AHA from the rest of the > markup community, then our biggest problem is the obscurity > of the descriptions. SGML was once treated in the same > light. As long as we dealt exclusively in the language > of generic identifiers, notation declarations, document > type definitions, top-forward parsing, and so forth, > the language of The SGML Way, we lost a lot of ground. > Standards are written that way for a reason. Selah, > but as soon as we relaxed and quit beating people up > for saying "tagname", we got a bit further. We need a > slightly relaxed and intuitive parlance for open > discussions. We don't have to invent groves. That's > done. We want to apply them. If we can get that > AHA, using the fifty word or less descriptions, we > have a shot at that. So - have I hit the AHA without realizing it, or should I just hush up and pay closer attention to the thread? > Moreover, I am deeply concerned that as the web > continues to get harder to build for, we will lose something > we need: new blood, artistic talent, worthy art, all because > we made it too damm hard. Then the artists have no recourse > but to surrender to the Sonys and Microsofts of the world > who will give them all the candy they can eat as long as > they send the coupons back. I must confess, this is one thing I don't get: why does XML need an API? I mean, here I am handcoding XHTML transmogrifications, and I still have no idea why I should/could get interested in SAX. I'm not writing a program; I'm authoring content. Text, plus some markup to indentify what this part is and what that object is. What am I not getting about the process; where does the API come in? Why do I need a DOM, and who's writing to it...and what are they writing? Rev. Robert L. Hood | http://rev-bob.gotc.com/ Get Off The Cross! | http://www.gotc.com/
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format