[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)

• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: Mike.Champion@S..., xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 07:54:53 -0800

At 09:30 AM 10/11/00 -0500, Mike.Champion@S... wrote:
>  It's not clear to me that the theoretical concept of "interoperabity" is worth all the extra work unless there is a very clear business case for supporting every bit of the spec.  Many users of XML building custom processing applications won't have this business case.
It's clear to me that if you regard interoperability as a "theoretical
construct" that needs to have quotation marks put around it, we have
no further basis for discussion.  Mike, perhaps you should make it
clear that this is a personal opinion, not Software AG's take?  I'd
have trouble doing business with any vendor that didn't see the
business case for interoperability of their tools and my data.  

The comment above is astounding. -Tim

• References:
  • Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
    • From: Mike.Champion@S...

• Prev by Date: Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
• Next by Date: RE: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Next by thread: Forget yee not the DOCTYPE, was Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE:Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread