4 ms·

Again, you're missing the point. He's saying that those two things shouldn't be different. He's clearly well aware that they are different. His very first sent

Again, you're missing the point. He's saying that those two things shouldn't be different. He's clearly well aware that they are different. His very first sentence is: As long as we think aloud in alternative syntaxes, I actually prefer to break the _incredibly_ stupid syntactic-only separation of elements and attribute values. His entire post is a hypothetical in which you 1) need a structured markup language and 2) are willing to break compatibility with XML.

lisper 11y ago
No, I understand what he is saying. My claim is that he is wrong. They should be different. There's a significant and useful difference between data and metadata, and hence there's a significant and useful difference between tags and attributes, and if you throw out that distinction you lose useful functionality, and specifically you lose the ability to distinguish between, e.g.: <input type=button/> and <input><type>button</type></input> Tags compose in different ways than attributes, that difference reflects a real aspect of the structure of the problem, and hence it's useful.
- brandonbloom 11y ago
  But it's not a difference between metadata and data. It's a difference between structural representations. Either or both representations can be used to encode data or metadata, but that separation comes from the interpretation of the markup.
  - lisper 11y ago
    Yes. But the two structures at issue are: ((foo baz bar) bing) and (foo (baz bar) bing) The only difference is in the location of a single paren. But latter representation (Erik's) loses information whereas the former does not. All else being equal, and absent a compelling argument why the lost information has no value, it is better not to lose information.
    - brandonbloom 11y ago
      1) There's no information to be lost. He's not talking about encoding XML, he's talking about general design criteria for a cleanroom markup language design. I don't understand why this point is hard to get. 2) The idea that it's "better not to lose information" is totally nonsensical because the value of information is contextual. For example, the ascii encoding of this message useful omits the subtleties of my awful handwriting, although you're right: it would be better to preserve the information present in the deep pencil strokes, indicating my frustrating with this thread.
      - lisper 11y ago
        > He's not talking about encoding XML Yes he is: "I have come to _loathe_ the half-assed hybrid that some XML-in-Lisp tools use and produce" > The idea that it's "better not to lose information" is totally nonsensical You are knocking down a straw man. I didn't say that is it better not to lose information, full stop. I said "All else being equal, and absent a compelling argument why the lost information has no value" it is better not to lose information. In the case of your handwriting, all else is not equal.

lisper 11y ago

No, I understand what he is saying. My claim is that he is wrong. They should be different. There's a significant and useful difference between data and metadata, and hence there's a significant and useful difference between tags and attributes, and if you throw out that distinction you lose useful functionality, and specifically you lose the ability to distinguish between, e.g.: <input type=button/> and <input><type>button</type></input> Tags compose in different ways than attributes, that difference reflects a real aspect of the structure of the problem, and hence it's useful.

brandonbloom 11y ago
But it's not a difference between metadata and data. It's a difference between structural representations. Either or both representations can be used to encode data or metadata, but that separation comes from the interpretation of the markup.
- lisper 11y ago
  Yes. But the two structures at issue are: ((foo baz bar) bing) and (foo (baz bar) bing) The only difference is in the location of a single paren. But latter representation (Erik's) loses information whereas the former does not. All else being equal, and absent a compelling argument why the lost information has no value, it is better not to lose information.
  - brandonbloom 11y ago
    1) There's no information to be lost. He's not talking about encoding XML, he's talking about general design criteria for a cleanroom markup language design. I don't understand why this point is hard to get. 2) The idea that it's "better not to lose information" is totally nonsensical because the value of information is contextual. For example, the ascii encoding of this message useful omits the subtleties of my awful handwriting, although you're right: it would be better to preserve the information present in the deep pencil strokes, indicating my frustrating with this thread.
    - lisper 11y ago
      > He's not talking about encoding XML Yes he is: "I have come to _loathe_ the half-assed hybrid that some XML-in-Lisp tools use and produce" > The idea that it's "better not to lose information" is totally nonsensical You are knocking down a straw man. I didn't say that is it better not to lose information, full stop. I said "All else being equal, and absent a compelling argument why the lost information has no value" it is better not to lose information. In the case of your handwriting, all else is not equal.