xml-dev - RE: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Aegis is the word:  as strong as the skill 
of the shield maker and the metallurgist, 
so we still depend on craft and process.

Again, I am pointing out the danger of 
defactoness and the problems of citation. 
In this case, as I pointed out to David M., 
authorities in two different entities saw 
to it that referential integrity was ensured. 

Now also again, I just don't want to have 
to explain it to a customer.  If I have to 
tell them we are using a profile of the ISO 8879 
standard, also known as, XML, I still have 
to cite the benefits otherwise, they will 
try to buy an SGML system.  They 
may think they get cheated by not having a 
full-up system.  (Someone always wants a 
caddilac no matter what gas costs).

That gets me through XML 1.0.  We end up 
having to grandfather the XML siblings through 
COTS implementation citations.  Luckily, 
further down the same set of requirements, 
they call out the operating system and platforms 
they prefer.  We inch around.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Rick JELLIFFE [mailto:ricko@geotempo.com]

There is no reason to expect that XML
will not have a successor sooner or later, and even if it not
a subset of XML it will still benefit some by coming under the aegis
of ISO 8879. (Is aegis the word I want?)

There should be no more contractual problem with specifying that
the XML industry profile should be used (as an example of
additional requirements) than specifying that a document type
should use an industry-standard DTD or non-ISO public entity set
or particular SGML declaration.