Subject: Re: Why XML is perferable

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:20:59 -0800 (PST)

*> From [email-masked] Sat Feb 24 06:15:16 2001
  *> To: [email-masked]
  *> Subject: Re: Why XML is perferable
  *> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:51:56 +0800 (CST)
  *> From: [email-masked] (Jun'an Gao)
  *> X-Loop: [email-masked]
  *> 
  *> >  *> well-known, but some RFCs such as those on OSPF may be much
  *> >  *> more vivid if written in XML. There have been quite a few
  *> 
  *> 
  *> > Vivid?  We are talking about deeply complex technical documents
  *> > here, not MTV.  What do you mean, "vivid"?
  *> 
  *> Maybe, we can display, say, an example of routing information flow,
  *> vividly. Putting a hyperlink to a GIF animation in the XML document
  *> would works. No MTV required. And I believe it will help the
  *> programmers/protocol implementors.
  *> 
  *> 
  *> Sincerely,
  *> Jun-an Gao.
  *> 
  *> 

Surely you jest.  Animated GIF?  How did you get through school without
having your algebra dance on a screen?  We can color the independent
variables red, the functions green, and ...

The serious protocol implementors I know construct their own private
"gif"s on whiteboards and in their heads, and they get by without
animation.  Sheesh.

Bob Braden

---

From: Stephen McHenry <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:19:16 -0800

>variables red, the functions green, and ...

Hey, that's not a bad idea.

>"gif"s on whiteboards and in their heads, and they get by without

<SARCASM>
Hey, real serious protocol implementors don't need no stinkin' animation. 
We don't need no stinkin' pictures. In fact, we don't need no stinking 
English either. Just give us the equations and the state matrix. Anybody 
that can't just understand that? Well, screw 'em!!
</SARCASM>

On a more serious note, having done a lot of instruction over the years, it 
shouldn't be about ego (I paid my "understanding dues" - everyone else 
should too!!), it should be about communication... i.e., how quickly can we 
effectively communicate complex concepts... I have waded my way through 
lots of documents (RFCs and some really incomprehensible stuff too) over 
the years and it isn't (or shouldn't be) about whether or not you have the 
intellectual fortitude to wade through and figure it out, it should be 
about how quickly can you communicate those concepts to others. Why take an 
hour if 45 min will suffice? Why take 6 hours if 1.5 will do? The sooner 
it's clear, the sooner I can begin implementing it. The clearer it is, the 
less likely I am to make any errors of understanding. The quicker I can 
implement a correct version, the sooner I can start on the next thing I 
work on... all of which adds up to the more I can accomplish in a given 
period of time.

It seems to me that what we really need is a truly representation 
independent form of content, both words and pictures (both still and 
moving) that is renderable according to user preferences on any specific 
device, taking into account the limitations of the device. XML isn't 
completely that, but it's closer than ASCII, or html, or other forms. But, 
it's a long way short of what I could personally dream of...

OTOH, you might feel the same way another person did who responded 
(privately) to my previous post with:

         "You totally fail to get it. "

Could be...

Wait! I think I still have an ASR-33 in the basement!! I think I hear it 
calling...

Stephen

Stephen McHenry
VP, Engineering/CTO
Cacheware, Inc.
655 Campbell Technology Pkwy, Suite 150
Campbell, CA 95008
Ph:  (408) 540-1270
Fax: (408) 540-1305
e-mail: [email-masked]
www.cacheware.com

---

From: "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:47:42 -0800

You know, the people on this list make great computer scientists, network
architects, application and protocol designers.  I'm not so sure how many of
us understand CHI.  Some of us like to think we do, but I suspect very few
of us actually do.  So, given this, why don't we ask some people who really
DO understand this problem to come up with a decent recommendation, rather
than perennially flaming about it?  Then we can ask them to help us with
NATs ;-)

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:39:06 -0500

> than perennially flaming about it?  Then we can ask them to help us with

But CHI is only a secondary issue.  The primary issue is the best format
for archives.  We want something which is not likely to be superceded by
something better in a few years.  So far there's only one alternative.
Others, like XML DTDs, are promising but still have too much
vulnerability.

...Scott

---

From: Stephen McHenry <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 00:59:58 -0800

At 06:39 PM 2/24/2001, Scott Brim wrote:
>something better in a few years.

Well, respectfully, I disagree... Only I don't think (in this case) CHI 
stands for Computer Human Interface, I think rather it should stand for 
Communication Human Interface...

If the archives were able to contain the content of the communication - 
renderable by whatever display limitations/personal preferences were 
applicable at each moment - then we would have truly achieved something...

Somehow, I have this idea that I'm talking to a list of the best and 
brightest of our industry... that we have (collectively) engineered 
protocols that allow communications using wires and wireless, that have 
enabled things that were impossible within the memory of most present 
here... So, now let's up the ante. Communication is more than bits on a 
wire. At the highest sense, it's the ability to move information from the 
brain of one individual to the brain of another.

Are we, as computer scientists, incapable of coming up with a format that 
allows us to describe very rich content (including text, images, animated 
images, even 3D images (and animated ones - 6 degrees of freedom), etc. - 
whatever it takes...) and then to render it appropriately for displays that 
range from capable to incapable...????

Wouldn't this be a better thing for us to be working on than fighting over 
whether we should keep everything in ASCII...???

From,

One who totally doesn't get it...

:-)

Stephen

Stephen McHenry

---

From: Bill Manning <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 03:04:15 -0800 (PST)

% > > us understand CHI.  Some of us like to think we do, but I suspect very few
% >
% >But CHI is only a secondary issue.  The primary issue is the best format
% >for archives.  We want something which is not likely to be superceded by
% >something better in a few years.
% 
% Well, respectfully, I disagree... Only I don't think (in this case) CHI 
% stands for Computer Human Interface, I think rather it should stand for 
% Communication Human Interface...
% 

	Hum... And I thought it stood for Chicago

--bill

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:34:25 +0000

In message <[email-masked]>, Stephen McHenry typed
 
 >>effectively communicate complex concepts... 

excellent point

one of the bigest contributions to the internet standards process was
Rich Stevens (RIP) TCP/IP _Illustrated_ series - these clarify,
disambiguate and communicate many many areas of standards - i agree
wit hbob that protocol creators may not need the visualisation and
graphic detail in the early stages, but as you say, there are lots of
people implementing who need rapid ways of absorbing the ideas -

however, that doesn't mean this has to be in the i-d and RFC stages -
it can be in a myriad of other places such as books and trade press
journals where articles abound giving the further interpretation - and
do say in many languages too

cheers

j.

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:16:25 -0500

> effectively communicate complex concepts...

In theory, I agree; we need to write protocol specs that can be read.
However, I would put greater emphasis on precision than on speed.  Reading a
diagram can be faster than reading text; but text can be more precise.  A
picture may be worth a thousand words; the problem is that you can't be sure
what most of those words are, because they come out of your reader's cultural
context.

--
/================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|Chief Scientist |===============================================|
|eCal Corp.      |A ship is safe in a harbor, but that's not what|
[email-masked]|a ship is for.                                 |
\================================================================/