- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 18:06:42 -0400
- To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Paul Prescod wrote: > Jonathan Borden wrote: .. > > > It's one thing to say that the > > _semantics_ of XLink are unacceptable for XHTML but another that "I just > > don't like the way it looks" -- surely not from the very WG that has foisted > > XHTML Modularization DTDs on us! :-) ... > > The point is that sometimes we have to put up with ugly syntax > > in order to get the desired semantics. > > I disagree strongly. Syntax is malleable. Semantics are malleable. The > mapping between them is malleable. If we can't find a way to get decent > syntax and semantics then we aren't trying hard enough. We can always find a better syntax and semantics, of course you and I (or any two people) will always disagree on what the best syntax and semantics are, which is the problem: whenever we go for interoperability, we compromise. Hopefully the compromise isn't too great, in which case we might decide not to interoperate. Similarly if we make the syntax, semantics and mapping between them too malleable, we don't get interoperability even when we desperately want it. The W3C wasn't founded with the goal of promoting good syntax, it was founded with the goal of allowing various software applications to interoperate -- essentially by standardizing syntax and semantics. Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 18:24:52 UTC