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

Re: The subsetting has begun

• To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@m...>
• Subject: Re: The subsetting has begun
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:17:11 -0800
• Cc: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>,Joe English <jenglish@f...>, XML Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C107FD69B2@r...>
• References: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C107FD69B2@r...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030212

Joshua Allen wrote:

> This is the most important point.  Common syntax
> (unicodeWithAngleBrackets) is beautiful for data interop, "information
> exchange" or whatever you want to call it.
> 
> The infoset people are concerned with interop at the data model layer
> rather than the syntax layer, though.  Data model interop is important
> in its own scenarios; mainly programming model (e.g. DOM).

Yes, and I want a car that runs on water and get 100mpg, but it ain't 
gonna happen.  The reason XML has taken off is that generation after 
generation of attempts to interoperate at the datamodel/API level has 
either failed or provided poor price/performance.  Syntax is a 
qualitatively, consistently, dramatically better basis for 
interoperation; desires to interoperate at the data model level, no 
matter how reasonable, are apt to remain unfulfilled for the foreseable 
future.  -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>

• References:
  • RE: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Pure syntax vs the Infoset permathread (was Re: The subsetting has begun)
• Next by Date: RE: On permathreads
• Previous by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Next by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread