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

[SML][LONG]Why i don't like SML [was: Re: sml without...

• From: "Fabio Arciniegas A." <l-arcini@u...>
• To: Don Park <donpark@d...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:41:44 -0500 (GMT+5)

>.  Just as you are interested in 'easy
> to learn' aspect of SML, each of us come to SML with
> different needs.  I am interested in finding the right
> balance which could mean that no one will be completely
> satisfied nor deprieved.

With all respect, and knowing that this was surely said before: 
1.There are many possible SMLs even for such groups as english-speaking
users of north america... over-simplification of an already reasonable
subset may lead not only to confusion but to a waste of valuable efforts.

2.Wittgenstein said "Let the game show its rules to you"... confusion
about what the game has shown and what we individually want (to strip from
it) is the source of much of the discussion inside SML.
We seem to have mistaken popular conceptions (like the idea of uselesness
of attributes -which i don't share btw-) with many artificial ideas that
are far from being
perceived as a benefit by the majority(e.g.only utf-8)

In short, many things about SML(s) seem to me not a "popular need" but a
collection of 
restrictions which aren't wide enough to be united and promoted as a set.
(...the fact that 
they include some commonly believed restrictions may delude us).

3.All the proposed restrictions are enforceable via other mechanisms(as
they may be needed),
withouth compromising with any extra conventions and keeping compatibility
with XML.

4.The size reduction/speed increase of the parsers is hardly an issue 
(at least for a vast majority).

5.Naturally, all of the above points have been exposed before(luckily more
clearly :) ],
and it seems to me that the answer to them tends to be "there is nothing
wrong with putting a tag
to it and try it... let the butterfly die in the winter if it must"... I
disagree with that answer, the efforts
on the wrong place (not saying SML necesarily is) are never neutral, at
least they are a 
lamentable waste and that is undesirable.

Of course i can tell nobody what to do with their time/effort but it is
clear to me that there are many
still unresolved questions in the higher levels of the XML arena and there
is where our efforts
should be.

Best regards,
		Fabio Arciniegas A.

Fabio




xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • RE: [SML] Without attrs, you don't need empty elements...
    • From: "Don Park" <donpark@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML4J EA2 --> Xerces-J 1.0
• Next by Date: Re: [SML]
• Previous by thread: RE: [SML] Without attrs, you don't need empty elements...
• Next by thread: re: re: [SML] Without attrs, you don't need empty elements...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread