Re: Serving generic XML (was: storing info in XSL-FO: new issue?)

<kynn@idyllmtn.com> wrote:

> Jonathan wrote:
> > <statement><quote><!CDATA![[
> > <kynn@idyllmtn.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why?  Because arbitrary XML is, to the UA, worse than simply plain
text.
> > > It provides an unknown structure but the user -- especially the user
with
> > > special needs -- likely has no way of making sense of that structure
in
> > > any rational way.
> > ]]></quote>
> > <there/><is/><no/><reason/><to/><be/><so/><dogmatic/>
> >
<nor/><can/><you/><so/><easily/><predict/><the/><intelligence/><or/><lack/><
> > thereof/><of/><your/><readers/>
> > Jonathan
> > </statement>
>
> That's very cute, Jonathan, but you can't assume that people with
> disabilities are going to rely on reading source code, plus it
> reflects a basic misunderstanding of XML concepts if you expect all
> meaning to be inferrable purely from the names of elements.
>

Sorry, you have me entirely unconvinced that:

a) so-called 'generic XML' has any particular issues w.r.t. human readers
with special needs.
b) global decisions regarding serving generic XML ought only defer to any
special requirements of humans (of any type).

Moreover, I've never claimed that one can infer _all meaning_ purely from
the names of elements. Rather, I was suggesting, or my example was meant to
be an example of the fact that one might _sometimes_ infer _something_ from
some arbitrary XML.

You claim that 'arbitrary XML' is 'worse than plain text'. I take exception
to this. Certainly garbage in-garbage out, is true for plain text as well as
XML, but for well written XML, particularly when XML Namespaces are properly
used, and the URIrefs that are the namespace names properly reference
machine and human readable documents, UAs _might actually_ make good sense
of so-called 'arbitrary XML'.

My view of what we ought evolve the Web into includes more precise semantics
and discoverable documentation, not something that HTML or any subsequent
variant, _itself_ is likely to provide.

If it is true that generic XML poses problems for humans with specific
needs, then what we need are better UAs, perhaps not those primarily
designed for HTML etc. -- but I really think that's not at all the point,
because, for example, my mother would likely have equal success trying to
make sense of some arbitrary XML as she would trying to parse HTML in a text
editor -- at the end of the day, I suspect that your entire point boils down
to the fact that HTML browsers have been designed as special UAs which
interface humans of all sorts to HTML. Similarly I expect that specialized
software programs will act as their own UAs, or share specialized UAs.

Jonathan

Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 14:50:26 UTC