In fact, I've pretty much convinced myself that embedded semantic tags
are altogether a 'non-starter' for text... because that info will always
work much better in META headers.
I still think it's a tragedy that the ciwah cult has poisoned that
newsgroup with the entirely bogus structural-markup-is-better meme, and
I do hold the XML crowd partly responsible for spreading dis-info on
this... for one thing in misnaming this group comp.TEXT.xml, when XML
really isn't a plausible solution for text at all.
My basic arguments are sketched here:
<URL:http://www.mcs.net/~jorn/html/net/structure.html>
--
I EDIT THE NET: <URL:http://www.mcs.net/~jorn/html/weblogs/weblog.html>
"One of the best collections of news and musings culled from the Web --
and updated daily." -- Austin Bunn in the Village Voice, 8 Sept 1998
> I think I've reached a point where I'm content to unsubscribe
> from this group, having been sufficently reassured that XML
> is not going to be forced down HTML-authors' throats...
>
> In fact, I've pretty much convinced myself that embedded
> semantic tags are altogether a 'non-starter' for text.
Whatever that means ...
> .. because that info will always
> work much better in META headers.
Meta headers have been redefined in terms of XML with the advent of RDF ...
see http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax/ . I look at meta headers (soon to
be RDF hopefully) as semantic information that is designed for machines
(internet agents) to read and not humans. The wise people that crafted RDF
understood that there is no absolute line between meta information and the
information that it talks about. This means that we now have a way to put
any semantic information we want on our web pages and people can start
working on smart internet agents to crawl on it ... finally!
Incidentally I claim that RDF is SVO ... see
http://clickshop.com/ai/symknow.htm and the outrageously simple claims that
it makes.
--
Seth
see Seth's Conjecture at http://www.clickshop.com/ai/conjecture.htm
And then on to the AI Jump List ...
However, if you're seeking to maximize the worth of your data, and if it is
distributed in a number of formats -- alternate electronic formats (PDF,
HTML, Quark, RTF, PowerPoint, etc.) and in numerous print formats
(Newsletters, pamphlets, form letters, etc.) then you're wrong. In these
cases, to efficiently convert from source -> whatever, knowing what
something is will virtually always be important to the conversion. Knowing
that something is a second level headline allows for more flexibility in
conversion than knowing "Arial 16 point bold italicized centered border
below". I may not want that formatting in my PDF, or in my newsletter -- but
I might want it on my web page. Encoding the formatting in the
archived/source version of the data (from which springs the rest of the
stuff) is detrimental when you want your data used over and over again in
different media and formats.
I tend to hold a pragmatic point of view in the structure vs. formatting
debate. In other words, structure is good -- but I've still got to get my
stuff out today, and I'm not living in a structural utopia. For a rough
draft of a somewhat satirical essay that deals a little with inserting this
pragmatic element into the whole structure vs. formatting debate, check out
http://members.tripod.com/~structureguy/manifesto.htm. I'm sure you won't
like most of it ... but the last few paragraphs (the section entitled "The
Role of Pragmatism") just might be interesting to you.
---------------------------------------------
Rick Brannan
rick (at) logos (dot) com
Jorn Barger wrote in message <1dg5pvn.lty...@jorn.pr.mcs.net>...
>I think I've reached a point where I'm content to unsubscribe from this
>group, having been sufficently reassured that XML is not going to be
>forced down HTML-authors' throats...
>
>In fact, I've pretty much convinced myself that embedded semantic tags
>are altogether a 'non-starter' for text... because that info will always
>work much better in META headers.
>
Jorn Barger schrieb:
>
> I think I've reached a point where I'm content to unsubscribe from this
> group, having been sufficently reassured that XML is not going to be
> forced down HTML-authors' throats...
XML does not neccessarily has to take to rule of HTML. HTML is good for
funky design in web pages, but XML is good for more technical stuff
where layout is much more functional. For technical documentation it is
a mess when every author uses his own style of layout. If you want a
standard in structure and layout, the only way is XML/SGML. Consider
structured search: You may want to find a definition for a technical
term. By searching unstructured information you will get all occurences,
in structured information you might qualify your search to definition
parts. Another thing is reduced costs and splitting of competence. You
may well be a good technical author without knowing anything about page
layout. Take me for example, I would never be able to generate a good
article without a tool like TeX. All knowledge about page layout is
stored in some sort of expert system for this topic.
Oliver
Jorn Barger wrote in message <1dg5pvn.lty...@jorn.pr.mcs.net>...