Hi Austin, >What was the example? Was it the formatting of replies to the list? Both of >your examples were examples of structured content...one just had a lot more >(and redundant) meta information...which, of course, is uneeded in the >context of an informal email discussion.
Redundant? Yes, only if the following argument has no benefits made without a context. You have been preaching the advantages I'm just pointing the disadvantages (one to appreciate one as to appreciate the other). Austin wrote: >The whole separation of content vs. presentation offers the one main >benefit of allowing content to be delivered in an infinite number of ways >to an infinite number of presentation devices. Where is the content/presentation separation in my post? So basically because of the computer cannot present easily in a way that allows the reader to click on quotes and go directly to the post were it was extracted from (Readers Usability). Further more there is no way for computer to distinguish different quotes according to user's and referenced posts for example to beatify it according to that or for example to simple access what was the post most referenced within a given thread. You say that is REDUDANT according to the speech itself (my intent) but not definitely from a computer point of view. So basically I'm arguing against the following statement made by Mattias > Isn't that missing the point? Authors shouldn't care less about how > their content is *rendered*, they should care about how their content > is structured and what it means :) I think getting from the "how it > looks" mindset to the "what it means" is one of the most important > factors of the advancements of CMS's > > best regards > --- > Mattias Konradsson Now you can argue that a CM is not supposed to manage the content of these posts. What a shame because I know that a lot of things that have been said here in the lists are actually more valuable that many books one can buy. Furthermore it could be presented not only on the list but also on PDA's, WAP phones as "news" or articles items. Also a lot of people would not argue the same things so often over and over again (such as this thread). But as you said, we seam not need it :) But note I'm an author when I write this posts, someone is managing, and its presented by a medium. So basically the use of a CMS seams obvious. Also your own interpretation of meta-information is somewhat distorted within the scope of CM. <heading>bbb</heading> The <heading> tag is hardly meta-data regarding bbb, but actually it adds information to "bbb" within the scope of a document. But it does not speak or tells nothing about bbb itself. The fact is that the <heading> tag was used for the purpose of decoupling presentation rather then adding knowledge (so in respect to that is redundant). So if according to you the <heading> tag is meta-data the all issue of meta-data is most of the times about adding redundancy (for witch I'm shocked if you do so). When you argue please argue within a holist view of things otherwise this would be an endless debate of examples, counter examples and preconceptions twisted to fill a nirvana that is not yet well understood by many. Best regards, Nuno Lopes Independent Consultant. -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
