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

Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)

• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
• Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:41:35 -0400
• Organization: Fiduciary Automation
• References: <200210071324.JAA14065@m...>

John Cowan wrote:

> Right enough, but I've never understood *why* you thought it was so important.
> Your general scheme of things would work equally well if there were no syntactic
> agreements at all.

It would not work 'equally well':  there would in many, if not most cases, be a
great deal more work to get to the point given ab initio by a priori agreements. I
have never disputed that building up on every single occasion of processing from
very loosely connected pieces is a lot of work, yet I do not insist on that work for
its own sake. XML 1.0 syntax is the price of admission to the party, and as I am not
entirely an anarchist I do not dispute that there should be such a liminal hurdle.
The goal is not to set the constraints so tight that autonomous processes could not
exercise the full expression of their particular expertise. For the cases which I
have examined--including processing concurrent markup, for which my methods are not
the same as Patrick's--XML 1.0 is an acceptable balance between the work-saving
convenience provided by agreements and the requisite freedom for initiative.

Respectfully,

Walter Perry

• References:
  • Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: XML Messaging in Multicasting
• Next by Date: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Previous by thread: Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
• Next by thread: ComputerWorld's 35 technologies
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread