Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Not necessarily. The problem in all of this is that using well-formedness as the basis for all XML applications forced language designs into the language itself. Now we demand of the language design the same features we demand of the document. Yet when we read paragraphs of the design document as I cited yesterday, they are targeted to highly specialized, highly trained readers with very narrow backgrounds. Do you consider those really "human readable"? Most of you probably can't or don't decipher the contracts your companies use to get projects for you to work on. It takes a lot of practice to see how even simple on the surface language leads to complex requirements or open ended non terminating tasks that bleed every bit of profit out of your companies. That is why so many of your companies are failing out there. The generic appeal to "humanity" while on the other hand focusing on a very narrow application of language is silly. We need designs for language that work in the application environment. Socialism in engineering is not the way to take out costs. It builds them back in, it makes them a permanent expanding feature of the design. In short, it fails to do anything truly useful. I can read XML Schemas. I am specialized but moreover, I have to study. I don't see a lot of you demanding that Java be "human readable". It is but only by well-trained humans. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Eric Bohlman [mailto:ebohlman@e...] 4/24/01 1:25:49 PM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote: >Absolutely. The value for contract-constrained >communication is the first and best application. Which strongly implies that human readability and human writability are among the most important aspects of a schema language, and that the last thing we want is an "assembly language" that we expect our tools to hide from us.
|
