[sc34wg3] Almost arbitrary markup in resourceData

[Murray Altheim]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Murray Altheim
> | 
> | Well, the sixth time is a charm: would the XHTML+XTM DTD meet the
> | 80/20 point? That's the question. 
> 
> I think that question is irrelevant, really. If there really were a
> problem with embedding arbitrary markup in XTM the question would be
> relevant, but I don't think there is, nor does anyone on the list seem
> to think there is, except for you. And you can't even come up with
> examples of potential problems or arguments for why simply storing the
> markup is harmful.

I think the problems in the RDF world are well known, as are they
in XML with XML Namespaces generally. I'm not going to enumerate those
here. As for potential problems, how about the fact that you could no
longer validate XTM? Or more generally, the fact that we're a small
and fragile market right now and that arguments for supposedly
necessary features that could enlarge our market might just as easily
be met by arguments against the destabilization you'll create by
splintering that market we currently have into XTM 1.0 and XTM 1.+.

The size of this group isn't large enough and the fact that we all
bring our own agendas means that neither you nor I are able to speak
for the needs of a general population, and I find it really arrogant
and offensive for you to throw questions of relevancy in my face. I
don't buy your argument any more than you do mine. Fine. I could just
as easily state that you have specialized needs, that you represent
a minority of a population, and how would you show otherwise? You don't
know any better than I do what the world needs, or what will grow
the acceptance of Topic Maps.

  > As I've already explained to you: your proposed solution achieves
  > nothing, since it implies stripping the markup back out of the XTM
  > document before XTM processors can see it.

You've not implied correctly. The idea of having *one* hybrid markup
language would mean XTM processors do see it, but only see one kind
of markup, not arbitrary markup, and handled like any other XML. No
strange "storage", serialization and de-serialization of markup.

  > My conclusion is that we have a proposed non-solution to a
  > non-problem. As far as I am concerned I see no reason why we should
  > not stand by the resolution we agreed on in Montréal.

Non-solution to a non-problem? Cripe. Listen to the world, bub. The
biggest problems with XML are with namespaces and arbitrary markup,
and with the ever-growing complexity of XML solutions. You're suggesting
we head precisely down that path. I'm arguing for stability and
simplicity.

I'm apparently the only person in the whole wide world that's happy
with XTM, and the only person to see a problem with arbitrary markup,
according to you. Consider for even a minute that you *might* be
wrong about this, if such thoughts ever pass across your mind.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim                         http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK                    .

    Entitled Continuing Collateral Damage: the health and environmental
    costs of war on Iraq, the report estimates that between 22,000 and
    55,000 people - mainly Iraqi soldiers and civilians - died as a direct
    result of the war.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3259489.stm

    Entitled Continuing Collateral Damage? ...a euphemism for BushCo.