|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Pontifications on the Perversity of Pedantry, Punditry, and Purple Pros
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick JELLIFFE" <ricko@g...> To: ",XML-DEV (E-mail)" <xml-dev@x...> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 11:43 PM Subject: Re: Foreign Names > > >Tim Bray wrote: > > >> <pedantic>they're not "tag names" dammit, > > >> they're "element types"</pedantic>. -T. > > >If we are going to be pedantic, isn't it "element type names"? > > > > Oh boy! A pedentry contest! <snip> > The most we can say with XML schemas is that the GI ultimately nominates > an element type, rather than being the name of one or naming it. Can I > claim the pedantry crown, so highly prized? While Tim, Paul, and Rick fight it out for the crown of Principal Pundit of Pedantry, I feel compelled be a bore and point out that the legions of software developers working with XML these days generally aren't amused by this stuff. Maybe it doesn't matter ... they don't read the specs anyway, they read a couple of the shelf-full of books on XML at Borders and get on with life ... or they read the help pages on MSN to get XML According to Bill and get on with life. In either case, it would seem that we're breeding a sort of mutant form of XML developers who DON'T CARE ABOUT THE STANDARD! (Geez ... why would ANY sensible person just doing their day job care about a standard in which what everybody calls a "tag" in their code is Really and Truly an "element type name" but in an even higher plane of reality has the Abstract Metaphysical Buddha Nature of nameness and typeness ... as we learn from Tim Bray's annotation?) People just trying to get their job done won't stand for confusion; if the standards don't provide the necessary clarity, the alternative is not chaos, it's the "de-facto standard" from somebody or other who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Let's get used to it or let's get our act together, but doing nothing and hoping for the best is not a realistic option. In other words, don't whine about IE5 not conforming to the standard; it will BE the "standard" that people care about if the W3C standards continue to require annotation by gurus, deconstruction by pundits, and exegesis by experts in order to be useful. Is there any chance that future versions of the XML Recommendation and/or the InfoSet will deprecate the weird terminology in favor of the conventional language of mathematics/software engineering? ... e.g., call a tag a "tag" and an "XML element information item" a "node" like God intended? ;~) Will anyone lobby/vote against future Proposed Recommendations until they are written in a language comprehensible to ordinary mortals who have not labored in the mines of SGML/XML for years? Does anyone else care about this besides Nils Klarlund and the usual suspects on SML-DEV?? If so, what is to be done? *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








