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

RE: Make implicit structures explicit

• From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
• To: "xml-dev@lists.xml.org" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
• Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 22:32:01 +0000

Hi Folks,

Thank you very much for your interesting responses.

Your responses have surprised me.

Consider this mathematical equation:

	3 + 2 * 6

I think most people would agree that it is useful (even best practice) to add symbols to that equation to make explicit the order of evaluation:

	3 + (2 * 6)

How is that different from adding symbols to make explicit the order of aircraft transitions: 

<aircraft-approach-procedure>
    <transition step="2">Enter glide slope</transition>
    <transition step="3">Correct for wind conditions</transition>
    <transition step="1">Contact control tower</transition>
</aircraft-approach-procedure>

Aren't both examples of upconversion (making implicit information explicit)? 

Isn't upconversion considered valuable? 

In fact, isn't upconversion considered to be an unstated, fundamental tenet of XML?

/Roger

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: Make implicit structures explicit
    • From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
  • Re: RE: Make implicit structures explicit
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@gmail.com>
  • Re: RE: Make implicit structures explicit
    • From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@gmail.com>

• References:
  • Make implicit structures explicit
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>