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

Re: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)

• From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:57:35 -0500

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> I probably could craft language that cites ISO
> SGML then recommends use of the W3C XML specification
> citing the benefits such as lower cost, ease
> of access to trained resources, etc.

    Actually you could specify use of the XML Declaration within ISO SGML,
and note that W3C XML 1.0 conforms to this.

>
> Problem is getting them to accept it.  If this
> were the RFI stage, no problem, but in the RFP,
> such is discouraged.  It will come down to how
> receptive the customer is.  Really, this is all lawyerese
> and contract namespace issues, but experience
> shows the problems of not having a clean
> "namespace with a record of authority" to operate in.

Most government agencies have a COTS (common off the shelf) escape clause
that encourages the use of just that in the name of cost and efficiency
savings. For example, your government agency will allow the use of IE or
Netscape even though they don't strictly conform to ISO HTML or do they wish
you to write a custom browser?

... but your point is very well taken and I think we agree on this issue.

Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org

• References:
  • RE: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Next by Date: Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
• Previous by thread: RE: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
• Next by thread: Re: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread