Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
[Michael Kay] >The problem is that it should have an underlying model, but it hasn't: [Tim Bray] >>I couldn't disagree more. Defining the syntax without the underlying data model *maximizes* interoperability >>because it reduces the number of shared assumptions. >>The notion that two organizations will share the data model for a purchase order or a bill of materials is just silly, Agreed. I'm not yearning for business level data model sharing when I talk about XML interoperability problems. All I want is an agreement about what comes out of a parser that is guranteed to round trip through an XML-in/XML-out process. I cannot do that at the moment without resorting to adding infoset items into contracts :-) Actually, I can, I can buy all my tools from the same vendors and deploy them at all ends of my business process. So much for standards. >but they can often deal with each others' serialized output. In my experience, they always hit a bunch of gotchas if they stray beyond the gang-of-four concepts of start-tag, end-tag, attribute and pcdata. Even then, really simple sounding things like white space, end-of-line handling etc. continue to *always* bite. >The evidence in the field is overwhelmingly on my side. My evidence from the field is different from Tim's. I guess I shouldn't complain:-) Even in these harsh ecomonic times there is tons of work for people like me solving pretty rudimentary interop problems they are having with XML. Sean
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format