[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: Linda van den Brink <lvdbrink@baan.nl>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:57:09 -0600
This is generic coding, or GenCoding. It is the
original markup technique. Several 80's era systems
used this technique. Yesterday while cleaning a
closet, I came across an Intergraph manual for a
system that worked this way. Systems using
the well-formed approach have been around for a
very long time.
Conceivably, one can declare a
set of conformance tests for markup systems starting
at the infoset or syntax level, then by adding
features, determine each level of XMLness. This
was discussed for SGML (the unicorn tests) but I
don't know what became of it. Being able to
separately cite conformance levels is useful
in contracting.
BTW: using XML in games is not that novel. The
X3D effort has an XML encoding and can be applied
to games, there is a talkingHead application that
uses XML, and extending the persistence of games
via XML serialization is a straightforward application.
The latency issues are a much harder problem
than picking XML for message formats.
Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda van den Brink [mailto:lvdbrink@baan.nl]
They certainly haven't poured over the XML specs in detail, but what are
they doing that's off-spec? They say the differences are that they don't use
DTDs (which they don't have to), internally they use their own 'schema
language', and they don't declare their namespaces, but do use what looks
like namespace prefixes in the sample on the same page where they make these
statements. Expat parses that sample without errors or warnings.
|