Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: "Michael Champion" <mike.champion@s...> > Not really wishing to start up the binary XML/ASN.1 argument again, I think XML's "terseness is of minimal importance" goal should be understood _not_ as a statement of a universal truth, but rather as a heuristic for simplifying SGML, which, being designed for humans to use, provides lots of ways for reducing keystrokes. (SGML says, in effect, "we can create a highly productive interface for entering data even in a dumb text editor": so instead of a fancy GUI where you press TAB to go to the next field in a record so you don't need to type to explicitly close the current end-tag and explicitly start a new one, SGML allows you to type "tab" and have the receiving end fill in those gaps. This is one reason why swanky GUIs do not necessary improve some kinds of data entry compared to full-featured SGML, while they certainly may for XML.) So "terseness is of minimal importance" says "data entry and compression should be separate layers from data serialization notations and not tightly coupled". That is a refactoring of functionality: it recognizes (and creates) a distinction between efficient data capture as a UI issue and efficient data compression as a networking issue. If ASN.1 provides good compression, and it can support all XML's functionality, then it clearly is a credible candidate to restore "terseness" to XML data transmission. Sometimes this terseness of data transmission is important (high-volume systems) and often it is not. There is no reason to claim verbosity always is important, and less reason to claim versbosity is never important. It also shows why SGML is sticking around: where simple keystroke count is a prime cost of data (e.g. data capture of prose documents from non-WF text) then SGML with short-references and minimization addresses the problem and XML+compression+XML-hiding-text-editors do not. (I had an interesting talk with a technical director of a multinational publishing company recently, who told me that none of the problems they had with SGML were solved by XML: in fact, XML got rid of the bits of SGML they needed! And my friends at Allette Systems (whose offices I now use), seem to be selling as many SGML courses as they ever have. So it will be interesting if SGML turns out to maintain its niche, against all the hype.) Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
