[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: InkML

• To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>, "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: InkML
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:31:54 -0500

That wasn't meant to be pejorative, Simon.  My apologies.

Is the syntax of InkML really opaque?  How much 
information does the human need to interpret it 
as a coordinate list?  How much information does 
the computer need?  In both cases, the information 
that tells either that those are coordinates is in 
the specification and in the implementation, not 
in the markup.  Is that the case you are arguing?
If so, we are arguing similar concerns.  I am going 
one step further and saying that it would be useful 
for productions that span applications to be shared, 
not reinvented.

But it is still XML.  If one uses that argument, 
one loses out of the box by definition.  The case 
to be made is one of how much markup enables the 
maximum reuse across applications because given 
any specific application, less can be more.  As 
you say, one ends up lost in arguments about the 
most efficient parse and so forth, but they wander 
away from other system-wide concerns sometimes 
labeled as lifecycle and repurposing of information.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]

clbullar@i... (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>I'm talking about reuse of productions, in this 
>case, coordinate systems.  You're talking about a 
>style of markup.  One can use InkML as in the 
>draft and still be XML.  You're quibbling about 
>the detail of the markup (the depth of naming, 
>thus, extractable categories).  At that point, 
>our concerns converge.  For example:

Sorry, Len, but with your use of that word "quibbling", our interests
suddenly diverged right before you hoped they'd come together.  You
showed your lack of concern for the issues that I find most useful in a
way that's even blunter than what I'd previously interpreted as a
mysterious wandering off-topic.

As for InkML, I'm happy to work with systems that don't mark every
single atom up - that's why I did all that work on Regular
Fragmentations.  I'm not happy to see committees creating opaque new
syntaxes in the context of what's supposedly an XML project.  That seems
bizarre, whatever committee-think justifications you develop to justify
such behavior.



-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: InkML
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Are we ready for the namespace ID registry, yet? (w as: RelaxNG question)
• Next by Date: RE: InkML
• Previous by thread: Re: The Granularity of Markup (Re: InkML)
• Next by thread: RE: InkML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread