Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 8/18/13 4:57 PM, David Lee wrote: > My personal (today) opinion is that the Gothic Romance is over > romantisized. Those "flying buttresses" were added decades or > centuries later because the cathedral was going to fall down, but > later were viewed as part of the art ... I don't believe I actually mentioned flying buttresses in the paper or in the talk. I do, however, find modern technology severely over-romanticized... > Plus comparing architecture to markup I think is a catwalk. > Architecture has to follow natures laws ... those are implicit ... > The building has to hold up to gravity and decay and use. Those > things are a given. But to compare to XML with schema ... I would > argue that Schema is the natural law. It imposes those things which > have to be upheld ( the building still stands under gravity, it can > hold a congregation of X, it has a ceiling hight of Y , the walls > dont fall down, it costs less then $X) It keeps the tempature above > YdegC .. It doesnt stink of mold. If schema is the natural law, you may need to go back and reread Thomas Aquinas. > To claim an equivalence to gothic architecture and schema-less XML to > me seems nonsensical. I suggest that you might want to actually read the paper. It's not just about the Stones of Venice themselves, but about how they were made. > Surely there is a range of constraints .... but to claim gothic > architecture had no constraints is just plain silly. If it had no > constraints it would be a Escher painting, not a building. I never claim it lacks constraints. (Nothing exists without constraints, actually.) I suggest that it offers much more freedom to those working with it. -- Simon St.Laurent http://simonstl.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
