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

Re: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality ofHTT

• To: The Deviants <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality ofHTTP)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:44:37 -0500
• In-reply-to: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0201291624220.28652-100000@l...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <Pine.NEB.4.33.0201291624220.28652-100000@l...>

On Tuesday 29 January 2002 11:32 am, Al Snell wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> > The point really is that for data interchange, you can do things.
> > Data formats can be standardized well (GIF et al. as you point
> > out). For information interchange (i.e. data that has "meaning")
> > it's much harder.
>
> I'm interested in how you define the difference; the meaning of an
> image is a pattern of light, the meaning of a purchase order is a
> request for a purchase.

Yes, I wasn't very precise. I guess I should say that you can easily 
define data formats with a static, non-extensible set of components. 

A good data format standardizes the extension mechanism (as you note 
with PNG) to allow the format to evolve. The use and support of those 
extensions causes problems (as you also note). EDI IMPDEFS are a good 
case here, as are DTD's in general. DTD's/Schemas evolve over time.

In theory, you can support an evolving set of keywords using 
combinations of underlying primitives (XEXPR does this with XML tags, 
and FORTH does it with words).

• References:
  • Re: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality ofHTTP)
    • From: Al Snell <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Next by Date: Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone
• Previous by thread: Re: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality ofHTTP)
• Next by thread: Re: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality ofHTTP)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread