- From: Coises <Randy@Coises.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 04:38:08 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
[Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:56:41 EDT] Svgdeveloper@aol.com: >It seems to me that we need to be clearer about terminology since two, >seemingly intelligent, individuals interpret the semantic richness and >poverty of XML in two diametrically opposed ways. Comparing XML to (for example) HTML in "semantic richness" is like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. Despite its name, XML isn't really a language: it's a *syntax* over which languages may be defined. A markup language used in an XML document can be specified as a namespace. When an XML document is viewed as *only* an XML document, it contains virtually no machine-processable information, aside from the structure of the document tree. On the other hand, XML can be used to construct documents of practically any degree of "semantic richness" --- but it's namespace(s), not XML, that describe how that meaning is represented. One might reasonably compare the semantic richness of HTML (or whatever) to that of a particular XML *namespace* --- not of XML itself. It's important to remember (AI SF notwithstanding) that only *people* can work with meaning. Using a style sheet, a browser can translate a document's markup from the "semantic space" of an XML namespace to the semantic space of formatted visual presentation. But a *person* who understands the namespace has to write that style sheet! *** Any time a computer appears to do something based on "semantics," *** it's an illusion engineered by human beings who understand how meaning *** is captured in the relevant representational spaces (languages). This should make apparent the problem with so-called "generic" XML. Indeed, one may represent a great degree of meaning in such markup; but who else will know what it means? You're writing in a private language. If the XML is designed only for a program that you're writing as well, then that's no problem. If the XML is designed to represent a generally-available document, though, there is a problem. You can write a style sheet, and supply it with the document, to describe how to present it in a browser. Will you know how to present it in an aural browser, or in braille? Will you have thought of how it should be translated on a very small screen, or a very large one, or a printer, or for someone with limited vision? A person may be able to "reverse-engineer" your private language and figure out how to construct a style sheet for his or her own needs --- if he or she has the time, and a good knowledge of XML and CSS. How do you react if you come upon a web page that interacts with your browser so badly that your only hope to make sense of it is to sift through the source? (I'm "into" this stuff, and what I usually do is curse the web designers for being such idiots and then move on to a different site.) -- Randall Joseph Fellmy aka Randy@Coises.com
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 07:38:40 UTC