[gmpi] [OT] Re: Topic 7.1: Channel Formats / XML, Profiles

  • From: Chris Grigg <gmpi-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 12:13:03 -0700

Paul wrote:

>>Think of SGML v's XML. SGML supported /everything/ whereas XML supports 
the bare minimum of functionality. Because SGML was so complex it never
took off. In 5 years XML has got massively wider adoption that SGML did in
20.


XML is the example that proves why parameterization does not kill
standardization efforts, but rather reinforces them, and is therefore
worth the trouble.  In fact, XML is -highly- parameterized, which is
its strength, and the key to its ability to adapt tightly and
appropriately to many different applications, and that (in addition
to human/machine readability) is exactly why it's successful, and why
it'll probably be a stable, durable basis for products for many years
to come.  We could learn from XML.

chris - sorry, but this is completely missing steve's point.

Steve's point was clear to me, and the reason the above doesn't address it is that I was going on to make a different and counter point using the same root example.


compared to SGML, XML is a highly constrained and from some points of
view, an almost inadequate system. yet as steve notes, XML has been
more successful in 2 years than SGML has been in 20. the question is
not whether to use parameters, its how, when and where to use
them. XML picked the right set, or at least a much "more right" set
than SGML did.

It goes without saying that GMPI should have an appropriate feature set. Merely saying that in the SGML->XML evolution the feature set was focussed doesn't give us any useful guidance in how to specifically focus the GMPI feature set. In particular, it doesn't help us evaluate whether parameterizing per-sample encoding is likely to be more helpful or more harmful. We have to answer that using other information.


>In XML, there is no such thing as a generalized XML parser; XML is

not really true. libxml is a generalized XML parser, and there are
others. i think you mean that XML is merely a grammar in the same way
that lex and bison are grammars that can be used to build other things
on top. the actions that are taken when an XML file is read cannot be
generalized, but the actions are based on a generalized parser that
identifies semantically distinct entities from the input data stream.

Yes, you're right, I meant that a generalized XML parser is pretty useless for a particular practical purpose or interoperability of a particular XML dialect without a DTD or schema defining the dialect. I meant to imply a parallel with GMPI, to acknowledge that the more things we parameterize in GMPI (per my suggestions), the more general it would become, and therefore the greater the need for limiting definitions akin to DTDs would be. Which motivated the idea of profiles that followed.

-- Chris G.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. gmpi
  3. Archive
  4. 06-2003