RE: [humanmarkup-comment] HN.requirements Chat Transcript

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Title: RE: [humanmarkup-comment] HN.requirements Chat Transcr

As I said to Rajeeth earlier, that which is not specifically forbidden or required is optional. I would say that we should accept it for now and see how it works. I would not worry overmuch until we start testing, and then the worry should be over operationality--does it work? If it works, how well? If it works well, yum!

That's my opinion.

Ciao,

Rex

At 9:38 AM -0600 3/28/02, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> Can we consider the use of RELAX NG for a peer to the
> XML Schema in the base?
> As the threads on XML-Dev are revealing, there may be
> some technical issues
> for a base/secondary design that will be hard for
> RELAX NG, but we may gain a
> design that is much easier for our target users to
> learn and apply.
>  
> A very complicated HumanML won't do.   One
> that is too simplistic won't either.
> I think we understand the domains that the base should
> represent in that our
> research has illuminated the most useful
> classifications for characteristics
> of human communication, but we have to assemble these
> in a way that the
> developers of the secondary languages that are really
> the primary application
> languages, can create also easily usable languages. 
> Markup isn't a goal
> in and of itself for us.  The illumination of
> human communication is, IMO.
>  
> len

--