[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RE: Make implicit structures explicit
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org> wrote: > 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? > Not if most people already know how to evaluate the first form. > > In fact, isn't upconversion considered to be an unstated, fundamental tenet of XML? > How would you account for the pervasiveness of abbreviations in XPath then?
[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
|