Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: heritage (was Re: SGML on the Web)
 [Michael Kay] >The problem is that it should have an underlying model, but it hasn't: [Tim Bray] >>I couldn't disagree more. Defining the syntax without the underlying data model *maximizes* interoperability >>because it reduces the number of shared assumptions. >>The notion that two organizations will share the data model for a purchase order or a bill of materials is just silly, Agreed. I'm not yearning for business level data model sharing when I talk about XML interoperability problems. All I want is an agreement about what comes out of a parser that is guranteed to round trip through an XML-in/XML-out process. I cannot do that at the moment without resorting to adding infoset items into contracts :-) Actually, I can, I can buy all my tools from the same vendors and deploy them at all ends of my business process. So much for standards. >but they can often deal with each others' serialized output. In my experience, they always hit a bunch of gotchas if they stray beyond the gang-of-four concepts of start-tag, end-tag, attribute and pcdata. Even then, really simple sounding things like white space, end-of-line handling etc. continue to *always* bite. >The evidence in the field is overwhelmingly on my side. My evidence from the field is different from Tim's. I guess I shouldn't complain:-) Even in these harsh ecomonic times there is tons of work for people like me solving pretty rudimentary interop problems they are having with XML. Sean 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
