[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Diversity (was RE: The lists I monitor)
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Anderson, John" <John@Barbadosoft.com>,"'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 08:36:42 -0400
At 01:40 PM 5/8/01 +0200, Anderson, John wrote:
>Wasn't the whole point of XML to remove diversity so we could all join
>hands and dance together as one big happy web enabled platform independent
>Or am I oversimplifying things a bit . . .
That's an interesting question.
My usual answer is that XML 1.0 removed syntactic diversity, letting us use
each others's tools and share information without worrying about byte-level
issues, much as TCP/IP provides a foundation on which other network
applications can build.
On the vocabulary and meaning levels, however, I'd suggest that it does the
reverse. While some see standardization of those levels as the next big
task of XML, I think there's a much more exciting opportunity for
programmers and users to represent information in the forms they find most
convenient to their particular circumstances.
That would mean an explosion of diversity (vocabularies) in a much smaller
set of circumstances (as XML replaces thousands of other possible base
As for joining hands, I think it'll be a long while!
Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly & Associates
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books