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

Re: The subsetting has begun

• To: XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: The subsetting has begun
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:53:02 -0500
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACFB2@h...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACFB2@h...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.4.3

On Tuesday 25 February 2003 03:36 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> and Gavin concludes:
>
> "The standardization efforts within a given domain might well normatively
> define themselves in terms of the syntax and infoset defined elsewhere..."

Note that I said "might well", I didn't say "should", or "must" and you also 
left off an important bit:

  "...but that doesn't mean the syntax and infoset are responsible for 
   interoperability."

In other words (and as I've said) I do not think that having a single syntax 
or infoset results in interoperability at the application/software component 
level*. It might *simplify* things for a specific set of applications, but 
that's about it.

> XML-SW is as close as any proposal I've seen put forward that
> gets the most benefits for the best sharing of the pain of the
> implementation.  I would think it in the best interests of the
> W3C and the XML community to start there.

I disagree. As I said at the start of the thread, XML-SW bundles namespaces, 
xml:space, xml:lang, xml:base and infoset, which I think is a mistake.

----
* Scheme/LISP proved that...

• References:
  • RE: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by Date: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Previous by thread: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Next by thread: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread