• To: "'Sean McGrath'" <sean.mcgrath@p...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 11:14:15 -0000
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <5.0.2.1.0.20011124103728.01ce9ea8@p...>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> It seems people on this list live in different universes. All
> around me
> I see XML that is as proprietary to particular vendors as their
> native "binary" notations where. I see the open systems *spirit* that
> is implicit in XML jettisoned while the *syntax* of XML - the only
> thing explicit in the standard - is used to create new proprietary
> notations.

What are you trying to say, Sean? That no-one should be allowed to design
and use their own XML vocabularies unless TimBL first signs it off as
approved?

In that case you've missed the point. The whole success of XML is that it
standardizes the protocol stack up to layer six while still allowing
infinite variety at layer seven for consenting parties to exchange any
information they like.

Mike Kay

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Output to string
• Next by Date: RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Next by thread: RE: Re: determining ID-ness in XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread