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

Re: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective notcod

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective notcode)
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 18:00:01 -0400
• References: <000d01c23bfd$f9274420$6401a8c0@didierhome>

[Didier PH Martin]

> Reading again your message I think I understand what you mean. I agree
> that stuff like the DOM is not the best stuff in town. Instead of using
> CORBA definitions, a spec could simply state how we define the object
> hierarchies and the object types (the one most commonly used in several
> typed languages). I think it's a matter of choices and paradigm trap.
> Sticking to the syntax we ended up with a syntax based API. Gee! a big
> of fresh air and some exercise brings back some common sense. So, W3C is
> traped in a certain paradigm and the bloat is the result of this
> dominant paradigm. I remember that in the SGML world we where beginning
> to understand that groves going beyond the syntaxic level where very
> useful, this is a lesson that didn't percolated in W3C workgroups.
>

But it has percolated to the RDF folks, who see their real job as providing
an infrastructure for semantics (graphs and model theory).  The syntax is
often seen almost as a necessary evil.

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• References:
  • RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: maps
• Next by Date: RE: Please no UOM (was Re: maps)
• Previous by thread: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Next by thread: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread