Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Mike Champion wrote: > >... > > I agree with Simon. For example, my canonical example of an order; > if you want to stay in business, you'll be liberal in the vocabulary > and structure you accept so long as it is well-formed and the > information you need to process and validate it (in the business > sense, not the XML sense) is in there somewhere. How will you write software to verify that the information you need is in there? Isn't the easiest way just to check it against the schema? > ... Nobody but a > handful of mega-corps will be able to get away with saying "if you > want to do business with us, you need to use our schemata." Of course. But if we presume that there are third party schemata for these sort of things then how is requring conformance to them any different than requiring XML well-formedness or Unicode well-formedness or conformance to the IP RFC? It is precisely the small companies who cannot afford to try to write software that is "approximately correct." First, there is the difficulty of writing such software (cf. the implementation of a legacy HTML parser). Second, there is the risk in misinterpreting a document and blowing a budget on building/shipping a product the customer really didn't want and won't pay for. Paul Prescod
|
