- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:38:58 -0600
- To: 'Bill de hOra' <dehora@eircom.net>, www-tag@w3.org
From: Bill de hOra [mailto:dehora@eircom.net] >> I don't believe syntax is fundamental in the sense that applications >> have to share a syntax to interoperate. Again, there are too many >> existence proofs that disprove this is necessary. >I'd like to hear about them. Start with VRML97 and X3D. As long as the abstract model is solid and the encodings support that, you can have multiple syntaxes and interoperate successfully. What you lose is easy integration with other languages, and anyone who opens an ASP page and looks at the multiple syntaxes understands both the solutions and the costs. On the other hand, if you want true interoperation between the attractors of behavioral fidelity and rendering fidelity, the syntax is just a throttle on performance. The Classic VRML encoding is waaaaay faster than the XML encoding and there is no impedance mismatch because of the structures. RNC advocates say they need the alternate encoding too for convenience (easier to teach; easier to read), so how fundamental is the syntax compared to the functional model? Not much. >> o Convenient - this is a piece of the architecture of any >> information system for which it is not difficult to get buy in. >> Most designer, manager, data owner or supplier will understand >> why this makes life more convenient. >If that were the case, surely this thread would be unneccessary? If the architecture is based on declaring that the 'web is an information space' and the document can get away with that bit of 'hand leaves arm and flies around room; miracle occurs here', there is no end to the unnecessary threads that can be closed with a bit of religious dogma. And that is all the 'syntax is fundamental' statement is: dogma. It is true in practice but not for any reasons more fundamental than 'cheap and convenient', and those reasons are sufficient. > Cheap and convenient may not be words that resonate loftily in > an architectural tome, but they make sense, even, common sense. > And that has value. IMO, an architecture document of the > primacy of this one should not include statements of religion, >Sorry, I'm with Tim Bray. Don't apologize. He is right about some things. He is out to lunch on others. Welcome to the chicken coop. >Syntax has been fundamental to web based interop in my experience and observation. Why? Because when a 'system' has that many users, cheap convenient pet tricks recoup very large costs. Those costs come in many forms including the potential wrangling over the holy brackets (Shall We Make Curly or Pointy Holy?). But even then, the impedance mismatch that a syntax specification with a namespace and a structure can cause create very real headaches. XML is the winner of the 'pick one' contest. Syntax can be very important. Is it important for everyone to pick one? No, but it is cheaper and convenient. >Whether or not we have a >good theory on the matter to back that up is another matter - I >suspect the current notion of "partial understanding" doing the >rounds in semweb circles might have something to offer. You'll have to explain. >On the other hand it seems that saying syntax (or an indexical) is >fundamental, or more fundamental to interoperation than either >semantics or shared models, is at best troubling, at worst heresy. >I'll close by noting that no-one is saying that syntax is sufficient. Because I never have been able to get this coop to do more than cluck when asked for a definition of 'interoperation', I have to agree with the last statement. It isn't sufficient. But I have to add, nor is it fundamental. Very useful, cheap, convenient, yes, but nothing about the web except scaling costs make it necessary, and necessity is my definition of fundamental. len
Received on Monday, 27 October 2003 13:39:00 UTC