Re: A Rough Guide to Notation3

Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
>...
> It seems you have some issues with XML itself, unrelated to whatever
> format it is used for.

I have no issue with XML. XML trades efficiency and parsing convenience
for human readability. 

This conversation has gotten WAY off of my original statement.

I said that:

IFF RDF is not intended for human consumption, THEN it should not be
built upon XML. Because then the combined RDF/XML language will have
traded efficiency for *nothing*.

> ...
> All of it?  There's lots of punctuation that tends to dominate for
> more complex stuff.  Hence the joking "perl" syntax comment I made
> previously - if you want scribbleability of power in the language,
> you lose some readability.

I don't know what "scribbleability of power" means but I am confident
that expressive power and readability are not usually at odds with one
another.
> ...
> In which case, where does your efficiency claim lie?   Formats
> that people can also read win over your request for binary formats
> for machine efficiency.

I made no such request.
-- 
 Paul Prescod