RE: ANN: SAX Filters for Namespace Processing

[Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>]

> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
> ...
> On 31 Jul 2001 17:35:36 -0700, Ronald Bourret wrote:
> > "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> > 
> > > Honestly, though, I'm finding less and less interest in 
> (or sympathy
> > > for) the intentions of the author.  It seems like these are really
> > > choices for recipients, to be made with consideration for 
> how much they
> > > have to gain or lose by dealing with authorial intention.
> > 
> > Isn't that one of the points of XML? The recipient can 
> process the data
> > as they like.
> 
> From my perspective, sure.
> 
> From the perspective of "A SCHEMA IS A CONTRACT WHICH BINDS THE
> RECIPIENT TO INTERPRET DATA AS THE SENDER MEANT IT", perhaps not.
> 
> People who get hung up on the "intent" of the message or talk about
> "invalidating" it seem to prefer the latter most of the time.

Or perhaps those who are looking at engaging in ecommerce and conducting
financial transactions across the web using XML prefer the latter most of
the time. Leaving these sorts of things up to the interpretation of the
recipient can be problematic, to say the least.  :-)

I think the question of which perspective is more appropriate depends
greatly upon the context and particular use to which the XML is being
applied. When XML is used as simply a messaging format between applications
(as in SOAP), the "intent" of the message is all that really matters. When
XML is used as a document format intended to stand on its own and facilitate
the extraction and manipulation of information for varied uses, the "intent"
becomes considerably less important than the desired use.

I guess it's a testament to the flexibility and general usefulness of XML
that it can be applied so effectively to these very different purposes.