[sc34wg3] XTM 1.1 issues

M.Altheim sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:51:16 -0000

Robert Barta writes:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 09:14:37PM +0100, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> > An additional rationale is that the editors consider that a
> > standardized interchange syntax is not something that should be
> > changed only half-way. Anything that is not corrected now will hang
> > around as an irritant for years to come, and so we would much rather
> > consider all the options than only half of them.
> I support this view, namely that of XTM being an _interchange_ syntax,
> not an authoring syntax. This is a shift of focus away from the
> 2000iesh understanding, though, which some members will be reluctant
> to follow.
> I only think that XTM will have a hard time being in a dual role, that
> of an 'interchange' syntax and that of 'authoring'. [ see Goldoni:
> Diener zweier Herren ].

Since you guys are in charge of the process and feel it within
your rights and duty to make such substantive changes to XTM,
such that to my eyes at least it doesn't look or act remotely=20
like the syntax of the current markup language, why not call=20
it something else? You've plainly got a much different agenda=20
than we had in 2000, as things you call "errors" in XTM 1.0=20
were deliberate design decisions, not errors at all, and things=20
you seem to feel are "irritants" have seldom been for me (and=20
apparently others, who've been able to successfully build Topic=20
Map applications around the current XTM syntax).=20

In looking at the various changes that have been proposed, I can
say that it's rather unlikely that I'd myself have much use for
the new "XTM", as it doesn't suit many of my own needs and seems
to have processing implications different from and far beyond what=20
I've been doing for the past five years with XTM 1.0. I don't=20
claim XTM 1.0 is perfect, but what you've been talking about=20
doesn't seem to be XTM at all, but some other, new language that=20
has only peripheral connections to the work done in 2000, and in=20
many cases you've even either changed or invented a different=20
descriptive vocabulary than we used then. It certainly doesn't=20
look like an "XTM 1.1" anymore, maybe a "XTI", "TMI", "TMDML" or=20
something else.

I think it's time to call your duck a dog, if it barks instead
of quacks.


Murray Altheim                          http://www.altheim.com/murray/
Strategic & Service Development=20
The Open University Library
Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK

          Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
          La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
          Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict.