- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:30:54 -0400
- To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
- Cc: Marc de Graauw <marc@marcdegraauw.com>, orchard@pacificspirit.com, www-tag@w3.org
Ashok Malhotra wrote: > It was, indeed, the inclusion of Programming Languages in the scope that > worried me. Ah. Well, in that case, I think that recommending: > we should fix the earlier parts and state clearly our focus on > markup languages and their problems. Seems to focus unduly on markup. Furthermore, I think that much of what's being put into place in the draft actually does apply to programming languages. I certainly agree that this is not a finding focussed on the special needs of programming languages, but my reading of what Dave is putting together about default interpretation of content applies very well to evolving programming languages. I do agree that "must ignore unknown" tends not to be appropriate for programming languages, except perhaps for pragmas, but I think what you've hit is a known point of confusion on some of the existing drafts: some of the Good Practice Notes, such as the one about must ignore unknowns, are not intended to be applicable to all languages, but rather are intended as examples of techniques that are useful with >some< languages. Some of us have objected to labeling them Good Practice Notes because of the risk of confusion. I think the right thing to do is to clarify that these don't even apply to all data-oriened languages or messaging formats, as opposed to focussing specifically on markup language or specifically avoiding programming languages. I think that the core abstractions that are being set in place are, or should be, applicable to at least the majority of text-based languages. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2008 13:30:51 UTC