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

Re: The Allure of Gothic Markup

• From: "Jeremy H. Griffith" <jeremy@omsys.com>
• To: "xml-dev@lists.xml.org" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
• Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:33:59 -0500

On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:38:09 +0000, "Costello, Roger L."
> <costello@mitre.org> wrote:
>
>Simon's paper invites us to challenge our commonly held beliefs:
>
>Belief:
>	- scalable is good

I think it is, but that does not contradict:
>	- individuality is good
Either dumbing-down to vocabulary or overdoing
it are both bad, but much of the badness comes
from making everyone use the *same* vocabulary
to describe *different* use cases.

>	- if you create an XML vocabulary and it gets 
>	  used by only a few systems, it's a failure
>	- an XML vocabulary that is used by thousands 
>	  is good, millions is better

Personally, I'm happy if *anybody* else finds
it helpful.

>Counterargument: 
>	- individuality is good

Yes, and that is what gets lost in constraint-land.

>	- combining XML fragments to create an XML 
>	  vocabulary which meets the needs of a 
>	  recipient -- ah, now that's the way to create XML

I see it more as starting with a small, simple, 
base set, but having the ability to expand and
extend in any direction to meet the real need.
And do that enlargement in such a way that others
receiving your docs can easily equate their own
similar (but not necessarily identical) terms to
yours.

>Belief:
>	- contracts are good

Yes, if they really meet each party's needs.
No, if they are standard forms that limit what
is possible in the shared experience.

>	- create XML Schemas and require all information 
>	  exchanges adhere to that XML Schema contract. 

And that oversimplifies and excludes as needed
to comply with the limitations of the schema.

>Counterargument: 
>	- infinite replication is lousy 

Yes, especially if it's replication of something 
that doesn't fit anyone well.

>	- it is not good to have every house in a neighborhood 
>	  look identical, nor is it good to have every XML 
>	  instance look the same. 

Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same...

Malvina Reynolds got it right... in 1962.  ;-)


-- Jeremy H. Griffith <jeremy@omsys.com>
   DITA2Go site:  http://www.dita2go.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The Allure of Gothic Markup
    • From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>

• References:
  • The Allure of Gothic Markup
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • Re: The Allure of Gothic Markup
    • From: "Jeremy H. Griffith" <jeremy@omsys.com>
  • RE: The Allure of Gothic Markup
    • From: David Lee <dlee@calldei.com>
  • Re: The Allure of Gothic Markup
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • RE: The Allure of Gothic Markup
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>