Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 11/14/13 9:29 AM, Timothy W. Cook wrote: That doesn't sound remotely like:Certainty and accuracy always have boundaries. The problems arise when 'people' do not communicate those boundaries and make assumptions about meaning. ------------------------------------ My view: XML stands for precision, relentless, mathematical precision. XML allows us to distinguish and locate items in an unambiguous way without any respect to the number of competing items and current "conventions".... XML is not a syntax, but a way of thinking about information, which scales globally. ------------------------------------ I think we may have found boundaries and assumptions in the current conversation. Yes indeed. They assume they have tools that let them achieve "relentless mathematical precision".An example is the concept that is pervasive in the XML community that element names should have meaning. Wrong, you are guaranteed to have semantic conflicts in interpretation. So it is the people not XML that has problems. Other than as I said, the possibility that XML is too lax. Which I am sure is one reason why it became so popular. People are lazy and ass-u-me too much. (Though Hans-Juergen is clearly not lazy!) Thanks, -- Simon St.Laurent http://simonstl.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
