Re: [xml-dev] RE: Make implicit structures explicit

Following in the style of previous responses:

Peter Hunsberger

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Costello, Roger L. <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Folks,

Thank you very much for your interesting responses.

Your responses have surprised me.

Consider this mathematical equation:

        3 + 2 * 6

I think most people would agree that it is useful (even best practice) to add symbols to that equation to make explicit the order of evaluation:

        3 + (2 * 6)

How is that different from adding symbols to make explicit the order of aircraft transitions:

<aircraft-approach-procedure>
    <transition step="2">Enter glide slope</transition>
    <transition step="3">Correct for wind conditions</transition>
    <transition step="1">Contact control tower</transition>
</aircraft-approach-procedure>

Aren't both examples of upconversion (making implicit information explicit)?

Isn't upconversion considered valuable?

In fact, isn't upconversion considered to be an unstated, fundamental tenet of XML?

/Roger


_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: [email protected]
subscribe: [email protected]
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php