[sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData
Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:18:46 -0500
Freese, Eric D. (LNG-DAY) wrote:
> As I said (when the 3rd time was the charm) - No, XHTML is not enough for my
> requirements because we want to use full (real) XML with our own semantic
> markup. I doubt XHTML would even meet a 20% usefulness level for us.
> Anyone else?
+1 on full XML. XHTML is simply too limiting.
Do think there needs to be a mechanism by which I can indicate what is
required to make sense of the data. Namespaces carry their own problems
and I would not suggest them unless we cannot find an acceptable
Suggestion: Let's discuss what we want to do, separate and apart from
current solutions and then evaluate the pluses and minuses of any
proposed solution. Prefer that over starting from a solution and making
our needs fit it.
Hope you are having a great day!
>>[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Murray Altheim
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 7:58 AM
>>Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData
>>Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>>Freese, Eric D. (LNG-DAY) wrote:
>>>>I am speaking from the front lines of the user community,
>>not the tool
>>>>vendor community, not the acedemic community. I'm claiming
>>my stake as part
>>>>of the target market - the people who want to make money
>>using the tools and
>>>>standard as opposed to those implementing or studying.
>>>Ouch! Or as Charley Brown would say, "He nicked me with a nyah!" ;-)
>>>The academic community has suffered at the hands of
>>>that prefer texts that are dumbed down until they meet
>>>on parsing/processing. Well, the users in the academic
>>community at any
>>>I think Eric's point is well taken and the various parts of
>>>map standard need to take it into account. Standards that insure
>>>information is interchangeable but that do not meet the
>>needs of users
>>>are interesting, but irrelevant.
>>>As Eric and others have suggested, we are not faced with
>>>interchange or usefulness. Both are possible in the topic
>>>but only if we show some imagination and ingenuity in devising a
>>>solution that meets both requirements. To choose one
>>without the other
>>>is a recipe for failure.
>>Well, the sixth time is a charm: would the XHTML+XTM DTD meet the
>>80/20 point? That's the question. Can we avoid arbitrary markup by
>>providing a specific hybrid that solves the problem for 80% of the
>>users who need extended abilities? As I've said, I'm even willing
>>to do that work if it means avoiding arbitrary markup in a standard,
>>which I will continue to maintain is a nonsequitor.
>>Knowledge Media Institute
>>The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK
>> Entitled Continuing Collateral Damage: the health and environmental
>> costs of war on Iraq, the report estimates that between 22,000 and
>> 55,000 people - mainly Iraqi soldiers and civilians - died
>>as a direct
>> result of the war.
>> Entitled Continuing Collateral Damage? ...a euphemism for BushCo.
>>sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3 mailing list
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
Chair, V1 - Text Processing: Office and Publishing Systems Interface
Co-Editor, ISO 13250, Topic Maps -- Reference Model
Topic Maps: Human, not artificial, intelligence at work!