• From: cbullard@h...
• To: Greg Hunt <greg@f...>
• Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:12:00 -0600

The history of XML from day 1 has been about the convenience of  
programmers or near-programmers, the infamous DePH.

It took marketing to make it about customer needs.  The embedded  
context is in those text nodes that we mostly ignore.

len


Quoting Greg Hunt <greg@f...>:

> Isn't this the example in point?  The world revolves around developers and
> the geometry gets a bit strange when there is more than one (well, more
> than one distinct developer culture).  The XML that matters is the XML that
> is shared and then it is embedded in some business context with its own
> language and culture and needs to conform with the language and culture to
> remain easily shareable.  If its not shared, then the tools are what
> matter.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@o...>
  • Re: Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
    • From: Greg Hunt <greg@f...>

• References:
  • Re: Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche@o...>
  • RE: Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
    • From: "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@U...>
  • RE: Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: Should one adopt the tag naming convention of an existing XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
    • From: Petite Abeille <petite.abeille@g...>
  • Re: Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
    • From: Greg Hunt <greg@f...>