[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: The subsetting has begun
Inline > -----Original Message----- > From: W. E. Perry [mailto:wperry@f...] > Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 12:05 PM > To: XML DEV > Subject: Re: The subsetting has begun > > "Cavnar-Johnson, John" wrote: > > > I disagree here. I don't see a fracture between users of validating > > parsers and non-validating parsers today. What's the basis for your > > assertion that this will have serious consequences? Nobody's saying > that > > the documentation world can't keep there current tools and > methodologies. > > I think the theoretical users of the new parsers have little or no > > interaction with that world anyway. I hate to see this false dichotomy > > between doc heads and data heads perpetuated. I'm interested in systems > > that integrate business documents (purchase orders, contracts, etc.) > with > > relational systems. I consider myself very "document-oriented", but > DTDs, > > entities and such don't buy me much of anything and the non-optional > > nature of the internal subset is extremely frustrating. > > In the fifth anniversary celebratory essays there flickers still the dream > of data fusion, under which there is in fact no dichotomy of doc heads and > data heads. What has changed is the orthodox opinion of what that fusion > is > to be built upon. In the 'remembering the original XML vision' thread Dare > Obasanjo succinctly made the case for fusion built upon infosets which, > like > you apparently, he believes is the new orthodox opinion. I do not question > that may now be the opinion of the majority. I didn't say anything about infosets and don't see how they are relevant to this discussion. Dare seems to be a nice guy and I love working with the tools his team builds, but I don't see how you can conflate his opinion with mine. > However, I build (and have > for > quite some time) 'systems that integrate business documents (purchase > orders, contracts, etc.) with relational systems' and with transactional > processors. As do I. I enjoy doing it with XML more than the technologies I used previously. > I can demonstrate with copious evidence that integration based > upon infosets does not work for the business documents which are in fact > found, as documents, in daily use while conversely integration based upon > syntax and a bare minimum of syntactic rules, like well-formedness under > the > XML 1.0 Rec, does work spectacularly well for such integration. I haven't ever tried to base integration upon infosets, so I can't contribute to that part of your comment, but I heartily agree with your comments about integrating with documents. I just want to have the option of integrating systems with documents that conform to a simpler definition of well-formedness. > > It is unfortunately clear that many are not interested in the empirical > evidence of how well integration upon syntax works, preferring from > polemic > motivations to dismiss its details with no better argument than that they > 'don't buy me much of anything'. I understand the empirical evidence very well. I participate in it every day. I believe you have completely misread my position. > Do you understand how thin and petulant > that argument must sound when what is at stake for me is losing the > working > integration which I have already achieved? How would standardizing a class of processors that don't process the internal subset, entities, etc. jeopardize what you have achieved? If there are costs to my proposal that I don't see now, I would like to hear them, but don't impute to me positions that I do not hold. Your processor(s) can still handle the documents that these systems would produce. If you use the features that are eliminated from the subset, then consumers of your documents would need to use a processor capable of dealing with them. Is that cost really significant, and if so, please explain? > If document creators follow > your > prescriptions their documents become increasingly opaque to me and to the > methods which now work very well in integrating those documents into > transactional processing. How is that? What prescription have I made that increases the opaqueness of documents? > When you reach an entirely infoset-based > integration you will have succeeded in limiting its benefits solely to the > cartel who accept your precise premises in toto before ever gaining useful > access to your 'documents'. You will have also, not incidentally, created > a > model of 'business document' suitable for your processing which barely > resembles documents which have natively arisen within businesses and > remain > the basis of conveying most information there. That is, instead of quick, > easy and working integration of what is now in use on the document side > with > the processing methodology which pervades the data side, you will find > yourself offering business only the enormous cost of building your > preferred > infrastructure before they ever enjoy the integration you offer, which > will > be an integration only with others willing to submit to the same onerous > conditions. I am completely unable to comprehend that paragraph. I'm not reaching for "an entirely infoset-based integration". I'm not aware of any cartel who accepts my precise premises in toto. In fact, I'm quite sure that I don't accept the premises you think I do.
|
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
|