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

RE: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>, Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>,xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:49:38 -0600

I probably could craft language that cites ISO 
SGML then recommends use of the W3C XML specification 
citing the benefits such as lower cost, ease 
of access to trained resources, etc.
  
Problem is getting them to accept it.  If this 
were the RFI stage, no problem, but in the RFP, 
such is discouraged.  It will come down to how 
receptive the customer is.  Really, this is all lawyerese 
and contract namespace issues, but experience 
shows the problems of not having a clean 
"namespace with a record of authority" to operate in.

You are right about standardization, as long 
as we are clear that it is a citation issue, 
not a process or tech or spy vs spy issue. 
I have not the stomach for those nuggets today.
Yes, it eliminates the sibling specs too. 

Now we aren't automatons, so we can usually 
find a way to inch around such problems, 
but at increased exposure to risk.  I also 
note that such problems occur only for a 
portion of the markup community, unfortunately, 
in some very lucrative business areas.

I am eager to hear how the XML community 
discussions went in San Jose.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> See the problem.  We can't even mention the use of
> XML in a response to this.  The W3C isn't anywhere
> in this considered a standards org.

    Or the fact that as of October 2002 electronic healthcare communications
between healthcare entities will be legally required to use X12 EDI
messages.

    How do we change this? By standardization. You should note that you CAN
specify XML as a subset of ISO SGML, so really the problem isn't with XML
itself but the host of other W3C Recommendations which have come after XML
1.0 including Namespaces, Schemas, XLink, XPointer etc etc etc.

    In terms of Healthcare standards, we CAN specify XML and related W3C
recommendations in the standards we write, and these, issued by accredited
standards organizations in the ISO food chain, are standards which may be
used for such purposes.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
    • From: Ken North <ken_north@c...>
  • Re: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
  • Re: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Options in XML 1.0
• Next by Date: Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
• Next by thread: Re: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread