- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:22:39 -0400
- To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Paul Prescod wrote: > > In *my* markup language it is my perogative to weigh the costs and > benefits of elements vs. attributes for myself. My choice should not be > constrained by XLink or RDF M&S. > Certainly, and *your* applications will perfectly understand the semantics of *your* markup language. I'm not sure that I want to bother figuring all this out, nothing personal, and particularly for standard languages, I'd very much like to use standard mechanisms, standard software modules, etc. to express relatively standard uses of things like URIs. I am willing to accept less than optimal syntax (for any particular language) in order to gain software and cognitive reuse across many languages and their associated applications. Sort of like how most folks have decided to code in high level languages rather than machine code. Frequently it is possible to improve performance, decrease memory footprint etc, by hand optimizing machine code, but at what cost? I had thought that the general idea of using XML was to allow application programmers to focus on semantics as encoded in software, rather than syntactic issues, parsers etc. etc. Generally it is possible to take _any_ XML language and further optimize it (perhaps in terms of characters/document etc.) by rewriting it in SGML e.g. using tag minimization etc. or s-expressions, or whatever other custom syntax... but I thought we were trying to get -beyond- such arguments (e.g. parens vs. angle brakets) Jonathan http://www.openhealth.org http://www.jonathanborden-md.com http://www.erieneuroscience.org Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 18:04:13 UTC