At 05:32 PM 7/31/00 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> Suppose we agree on MIME? If you send me a MIME document, I can process the
> characters using a MIME parser in 'MIME syntax' -- so what? It is always
> possible to send a perfectly well formed XML document that is totally
> useless e.g.
> <doc> <byte>67</byte> <byte>121</byte>... </doc>

Uselessness is in the eye of the beholder, and MIME only takes you to the
doucment container, not to its contents.  67 121 might be a very important
code to me.

(Ever hear of those radio stations broadcasting only numbers?)

> The point is that some people might view XML as just a bunch of pointy
> brackets, and so what if the syntax is perfect *who cares*. Suppose your
> English syntax is perfect but you have nothing to say? What do I care about
> syntax?

If you have an important message to get to me, and you use German syntax, I
can promise that you'll be disappointed even if you use English vocabulary.

> The only reason we *need* agreed upon syntax is that we have something to
> say to eachother (i.e. semantics). What interests me about XML is the
> possibility of creating semantically meaningful documents.

That may be what interests you, but I find that outlook unnecessarily
limiting.  
There are plenty of things I can do with XML as far as _figuring out_
semantics that I can't do with binary or otherwise encoded formats, and I'd
much rather you send me material in XML - even if I don't know the
semantics beforehand.

I'll take my syntax before my semantics, thank you.

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books