W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Precise Definition for Interoperability Needed (Was RE: [Minu tes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting (why XML))

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:58:54 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACFEC@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Chris Lilley'" <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>

Something like that although a comparison to CSV we 
were doing on XML-Dev gives it bit more depth.  In 
CSV, the names of the data are given followed by 
successive sets of data by those names.   This is 
a non-redundant markup.   A redundant markup such as 
XML, applies the name every time (both in the start 
and in the end tags; end tagging is a different 
kind of redundancy that SGML minimization enabled 
one to do away with).  Even though CSV, as was 
correctly pointed out, is only a very shallow 
kind of markup, the nature of the non-redundancy 
creates that restriction of applicability.  The 
redundancy of the XML markup does enable a more 
complex tree to be described.  This enables better 
handling of for example, fragments, when reused 
in different contexts.   Persistence might refer 
to the lifecycle aspect in which information that 
is serialized as markup can more easily be recovered 
by different systems (not the original system that 
persisted it to storage), or of the ability to take 
a proper branch and use it in a different context.  

Still, I don't think all of this should be explained 
in the architecture document.  It feels like annotative 
information to me for someone glossing the arch doc.


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org]

Ok so this is the "why closing tags contain the element name"
argument. That gives me redundancy, of a sort (although content
transfer encodings like XMill then remove that redundancy which could
be a problem on lossy transports).

Still no link with persistence - I am inclined to think that it may
have been a conflation of two ideas, 'brain-faster-than-hands' or just
a simple error.

BCLL> The author of that statement (whoever 
BCLL> it was) should be the one to defend it; otherwise, 
BCLL> I agree with you that it should be dropped.

Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 13:59:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:37 UTC