xml:id RE: [sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question
Thu, 21 Jul 2005 19:14:35 +1000
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:56:02AM +0200, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> > > Content is the author's responsibility. If I want my XML file to
> > > make sense, I'm responsible for making sense, and there's no schema
> > > language on earth that can enforce that for the kinds of information
> > > with which I work.
> > So it is all well for you to expose 'authors' to the enormous overhead
> > of creating XML without actually helping them with the REALLY
> > IMPORTANT ISSUE, namely whether what they create makes sense in terms
> > of the model they are working against?
> Sorry, seems that I've lost the thread, but how will CTM be different for that matter?
That is exactly the point :-) It is not!
My argument is/was that XML, sort of, gives you a wrong sense
of security, like policemen at every corner. Without actually
protecting you from the real danger of a sporadic bomber.
> I understand that it will need specific parsers.
Like with XTM, yes.
> So instead of the 'enormous overhead of creating XML', which is, you
> have to admit, sort of biased appreciation, you will have the
> 'slight overhead' to get and learn new tools, new syntax, new ways
> of validation, and so on, and your stuff will be only usable against
> the TMDM model and TM applications.
1) Learning a shorthand notation means overhead once in your life. Using
XTM means overhead everytime you author. Difference here.
2) For 'validation' an XML validation of an XTM document is pretty much
the most useless thing on this planet. What does this give you?
3) And, given a shorthand notation and a 100 lines Perl program you can do
cat something.atm | astma2xtm | xsltproc xtm2html.xslt -
to apply all sorts of XML tools on it.
> One thing that has not be mentioned here is that a piece of XML
> simply valid against the XTM DTD is maybe not valid against TMDM,
> but it's valid XML altogether, ...
> ... so for people who don't care too much about being conformant to
> TMDM, it's a good piece of XML that can be crunched and parsed with
> all sorts of available tools.
I do not want to stop you from authoring arbitrary XML documents which
have some remote resemblance with Topic Maps.
I am talking here about Topic Maps.
> Do you think all RDF/RDFS/OWL hackers around mind if their stuff is
> valid against the RDF abstract syntax and semantics, which 99% of
> them (I for one) are completely unable to read and understand
> (supposing they know about it)? Do you really think TM hackers are
> better than those guys?
Of course I think we are better than them :-)))
But seriously, comes time, comes quality. My first XML documents back
in the previous century were, uhm, not XML at all...