• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: syntax (was RE: What is "the Web")
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 26 Apr 2002 14:41:04 -0400
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B371@HQ5>
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E430752B371@HQ5>

On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 14:28, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> But I am just as paranoid as Bray about what 
> happens if the syntax anchor is pulled out. 
> The utility of that is undeniable.  For my 
> money, when the syntax goes away, it quits 
> being XML, the point being, the infoset 
> abstraction does not shrink the space of 
> needed processing resources as well as the 
> syntax does.

Syntax pours a lot of concrete into airy abstractions, and even lets you
ask tough question and expect a straight answer.  While a lot of people
seem more interested in ideas than syntax, control over syntax can be an
enormous source of power.

I'm not expecting the entire world to use XML syntax - it's not ideal
for everything - but when it's time to present a canonical and
processable view of information, it's glorious stuff. 
 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: syntax (was RE: What is "the Web")
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • RE: What is "the Web"
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: What is "the Web"
• Next by Date: Re: XML UTF-16 encoding problem
• Previous by thread: RE: What is "the Web"
• Next by thread: Re: syntax (was RE: What is "the Web")
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread