Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > > james.anderson@s... (james anderson) writes: > >> While that is compelling, it's probably not acceptable given that > >> you may have multiple consumers of your data who may or may not be > >> machines. > > > >but how many of those non-machines will not have their access mediated > >by one? > > Depends on what you mean by "mediated". While I do occasionally work > with XML on paper or blackboards, I generally work with it in text > editors. I occasionally (10% ?) edit XML indirectly through an > application, which is a heavier form of mediation. I don't think I ever > work with XML expecting _never_ to have to look at the markup. > > In any case, I design my own tools around the expectation that mediation > may be available but will not be necessary for interpretation. > on the other hand, i can't put my finger on the last time i seriously tried to interpret a stack trace without a symbol table. or rather without some machine doing the interpretation for me. and even in the days when i had to, it never would have occurred to me to expect to find my comments in the machine code. ...
|
