• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 14:29:35 +0100
• In-reply-to: <r01050300-1015-44EA06C4B43F11D69F470003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>
• References: <r01050300-1015-44EA06C4B43F11D69F470003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

Simon St.Laurent wrote,
> To put it another more amusing way, RDF is inhuman.  XML at least
> tries to balance human and computer approaches to information.  Then
> Namespaces in XML came along - oh, the humanity!

I'm obviously missing something, because of the ten design goals listed 
at the the top of the XML REC only one, "XML documents should be 
human-legible and reasonably clear", speaks to humanity. The bulk of 
the remainder address automated processing and the needs of 
programmers.

I think you've been seeing more human-friendliness than was ever really 
intended to be there.

Cheers,


Miles

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: patterns vs. identifiers
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: patterns vs. identifiers
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: patterns vs. identifiers
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
• Next by Date: shared costs (was something about infoset has two daddies)
• Previous by thread: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Next by thread: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread