xml-dev - RE: Intel's XML Engines

["Abjanic, John" <john.abjanic@intel.com>]

I apologize for the confusion.
-
I meant to say we are NOT "burning-in" any specific XML- based 
language, and are taking a general purpose approach to provide
interoperability for any XML- based system.

-John

-----Original Message-----
From: John Robert Gardner [mailto:jrgardn@emory.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 8:17 AM
To: Abjanic, John
Cc: 'xml-dev@xml.org'
Subject: Re: Intel's XML Engines


On Mon, 15 May 2000, Abjanic, John wrote:

> The Intel NetStructure  7210 XML Accelerator and 7280 XML Director
> network appliances announced last week at Networld + Interop both
> have the same XML engine for processing XML data streams. It is designed
> to handle any XML 1.0 based language, including cXML, CBL, and BizTalk.
> At this point we are "burning-in" only specific XML based languages, but
> rather are talking a general purpose approach to provide interoperability
> for any
> XML system

My apologies to the list if this has been overly-discussed, I've been out
of town . . . 

The last sentence has apparently been edited and a key negative is
syntactically implied without being semantically present: "'burning-in'
only specific XML based languages . . . " is then followed by "but" --
which states an implicit exception to the former, and reverses the
rhetorical weight of that preceding clause by the following "rather."  In
effect, how can this be a "general purpose approach" if the handingly of
"any" XML 1.0 language, cXML, CBL and BizTalk, as noted, are part of "only
specific XML based languages (wouldn't "schemas" be more accurate in
context?)?  If only specific languages are burned in, how is there
"interoperability for any XML system?"  

In short, can the implications of the last two sentences of that paragraph
be explicitly unpacked?

> 
> The 7210 XML Accelerator won the Grand Prize for for Best of Show and was
> judged the most innovative new product.

To be sure, the is a sense of "validation" (pun intended) for the XML
community in this innovation which has a range of implications . . .
including, of course, that some schemas seem to _not_ be valid . . .
unless there is a meaning in teh original post to which I'm replying which
is not overt.

respectfully,

johnrobert

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
John Robert Gardner, Ph.D.
XML Engineer
Emory University
------------------------------------------------------------
http://vedavid.org/diss/
"If there is something you're thinking of doing, or wish you could do,
begin it.  In boldness there is mystery and power . . . . "  -Goethe

> 
> John Abjanic
> Intel Corporation
> Commerce Equipment Operation
> 13280 Evening Creek Drive
> San Diego, CA 92128
> (858) 391-1900 x1712
> 
> 
> 
>
***************************************************************************
> This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
> To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
> List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
***************************************************************************
> 



***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************