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

RE: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)

• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:32:33 -0500

> I was talking about the "theoretical concept of  
> interoperability" simply because the XML world 
> hasn't seen as much of it in practice as we talk 
> about in theory.

At the (well-formed) XML parser level, interoperability 
is pretty good (certainly *far* better than 
interoperability between HTML parsers, even now).
The problems with interoperability are typically 
above the purely syntactic level.

One thing to remember: the 80/20 rule *always*
applies. No matter how trivial the standard, people
are tempted to cut corners... and it is in these
corners that interoperability issue crop up.

Interoperability comes from standards conformance. 
People that do not implement the standard should
not claim to do so, and should not expect to be
fully interopable with people that do.

• References:
  • RE: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
    • From: Mike.Champion@S...

• Prev by Date: Re: xslt
• Next by Date: RE: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Previous by thread: RE: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Next by thread: Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread