[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Sean McGrath <sean@digitome.com>
- To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:54:54 +0000
At 12:07 PM 11/10/00 -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote:
>On the contrary, I think he believes in interoperability
>more than many others as he does not see complance as an
>all-or-nothing game. CommonXML is a shining example of
>this push for interoperability in our less than perfect world.
+1.
For years I went to SGML conferences and heard people
claim 100% SGML compliance for their tools. In all cases,
from an interoperability perspective, this was a useless
claim. Interoperability did not "drop out" of SGML compliance
and it does not "drop out" of XML compliance either.
Fact: interoperability with XML is not a no-brainer.
Fact: Common XML is an honest attempt at making
XML interoperability a no brainer.
Fiction: Common XML is dangerous.
The *real *danger lies in burying ones head in the
sand, pretending that interopability with XML is a done
deal - even in a world of 100% compliant parsers.
Just as music is the stuff between the notes, I'm afraid
that true interoperability seems to be the stuff
between the standards.
Sean
Sean McGrath
CTO
Propylon - Enabling Universal Mobility
http://www.propylon.com
Tel: +353 1 6620482
|
