4 ms·
Didn't read the entire paper, but the criticism on Google Wave is poor, baseless and subjective. "The authors even had to enrich XML with additional entities n
by Rauchg 16y ago
Didn't read the entire paper, but the criticism on Google Wave is poor, baseless and subjective.
"The authors even had to enrich XML with additional entities named “annotations” to make it suitable for their needs"
This is what Etherpad did for adding support for lists, bold, italics, etc. Did anyone complain? Does it not work?
Granted, Wave's approach is way more ambitious. They support any sort of XML groves, and not just simple 1-level deep tags like Etherpad.
- gritzko 16y agoSome unexpected issues are not solved for past 20 years. I do not attack annotations or XML per se. The general approach "neither thing is precisely OK, so let's use both" seems questionable to me. I believe, XML is complex enough, so why do we need XXML? Finally, by using annotations they recognize that XML nesting is a pain in the ass, but they did not solve the problem, just sort of relieved it. Actually, I doubt a lot, whether XML is actually carrying some useful load in the Wave. But the last one is just a feeling.
- Rauchg 16y agoHave you taken a look at admissibility-based transformations (ABT) [1]? It seems to solve the issues that concern you (validating the correctness of OT). [1] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1713726 http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1713726