[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: What is declarative XML? (And what's not)
The information conveyed is the same. The apriori reliabilities of the processors shift feet. A Warning is a label which in SGML terms was just a name. A Warning is a name the human reader interprets easily but the program must be written specifically for the name. A Div is a signal to the formatting engine to id a box. It is still just a name but used by all because despite superstitions, a document is a formatted object/article/page/blah in most frequent use, the sense of practice. The combination enables the user to attach semantics to the name and the label. The combination makes the system use more reliable. Ultimately, it's still just Shannon. You are fixing probabilities. That is why Dan Brickley's point is taken because the implication is the winner trades off machine and human effort but increase order as the means of making the trade. But it would be interesting to see an ordering-based cost metric for the current languages such as RDF vs HTML vs etc. I think we've discussed it in the past. len -----Original Message----- From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:rjelliffe@allette.com.au] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 1:45 AM To: 'xml-dev@lists.xml.org' Subject: Re: What is declarative XML? (And what's not) Costello, Roger L. wrote: > I assert that documents that have no inherent processing semantics have substantial benefits in terms of reusing them and mining them and mashing them up. > This is the old SGML idea of taking out *all* processing semantics and then having another layer to add them back again. Even if you didn't need to. In the particular case of rich text, this approach has just about lost. Consider five ways of marking up a warning section: <warning>... <warning render="section">... <div class="warning">... <section> ... <br />... It is the middle one that has won, in effect. I think the principle is that where there is a mass technology or well-accepted public vocabulary which represents the base or default semantic (i.e. the semantic which any reasonable use would establish) it is better to subclass this. There is also a simplicity principle involved too, that you don't strip out what you must immediately add again, I think. What is easy to process is an important consideration that swings both ways: if the data is textual then subclassing HTML may be the simplest to process, but if the data is very rich and structured, then marking it up as HTML might increase the difficulty of processing it. (Insert GRDDL story here.) Let look at the case of definition lists. You could reformat them as two column tables. But it does no harm to mark them up as lists. One of the benefits of pure descriptive markup is that, if it is complete enough, it prevents the user from having different ways to do the same thing: the constraint "Does every address have a postcode?" can be checked more easily in pure descriptive markup. (Though this is because grammar-based schema languages are terrible at checking "architectural" structures such as those marked up using html:*/@class.) Cheers Rick Jelliffe _______________________________________________________________________ XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS to support XML implementation and development. To minimize spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting. [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|