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

Re: re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• From: "Lauren Wood" <lauren@t...>
• Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 09:10:14 -0800
• In-reply-to: <E18nIwx-0000PX-00@m...>
• Priority: normal
• References: <oprk18a51jezizxn@s...> from Mike Champion at "Feb 23, 2003 01:29:19 pm"
• Reply-to: lauren@t...

On 24 Feb 2003 at 8:47, John Cowan wrote:

> Mike Champion scripsit:
> 
> > It seems to me that Sean raises a more profound issue. If XML has brought 
> > real interoperability benefits despite widespread non-conformance to the 
> > spec (whether we call the non-conformance "bugs" or "features"), then the 
> > argument that the benefits are threatened by non-conformant implementations 
> > seems highly suspect.
> 
> It's not about non-conformant implementations.  It's about non-conformant
> specifications: i.e. subset specifications that claim to be the real thing.
> The Sun specification makes it impossible to use a conformant XML parser as
> a J2ME implementation.

I agree. The bugs that Sean has found in various XML implementations, 
one assumes, were found because he was trying to use the features in 
question. So one could also assume there is a use for them. The XML 
specification gives Sean and others a way to encourage / force (pick 
your favourite verb) vendors and implementors to fix those bugs and 
allow use of those features.

It's easy to imagine a world in 5 years where there is a subsetted 
version of XML with another acronym that is the hype generator of the 
day, and the only people who use XML are those who need the extra 
features (just as there are people today who use SGML for the extra 
features it has). What would be a botch would be for it to be called 
XML. If it's different, it should have a different acronym. 

Lauren

--

Lauren Wood, Chair, XML 2003
Information soon at www.xmlconference.org

• References:
  • Re: re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Could someone give a precise definition to these terms and the relationships between them?
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Are the data users happy? Why not?
• Previous by thread: Re: re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Next by thread: Re: re: The J2ME pseudo-XML botch
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread