• From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...>
• To: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
• Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 23:37:31 +0100

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@m...> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Thank you very much for your interesting responses.
>
> Your responses have surprised me.
>
> Consider this mathematical equation:
>
>         3 + 2 * 6
>
> I think most people would agree that it is useful (even best practice) to add symbols to that equation to make explicit the order of evaluation:
>
>         3 + (2 * 6)
>
> How is that different from adding symbols to make explicit the order of aircraft transitions:
>
> <aircraft-approach-procedure>
>     <transition step="2">Enter glide slope</transition>
>     <transition step="3">Correct for wind conditions</transition>
>     <transition step="1">Contact control tower</transition>
> </aircraft-approach-procedure>
>
> Aren't both examples of upconversion (making implicit information explicit)?
>
> Isn't upconversion considered valuable?
>

Not if most people already know how to evaluate the first form.

>
> In fact, isn't upconversion considered to be an unstated, fundamental tenet of XML?
>

How would you account for the pervasiveness of abbreviations in XPath then?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: Make implicit structures explicit
    • From: Thomas Passin <list1@t...>

• References:
  • Make implicit structures explicit
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: Make implicit structures explicit
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>