Re: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML

[Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@propylon.com>]

> >     4) Accept from the outset that processing--and therefore the processing
> > model, its order of operations, and the particular form of data input which
> > it expects and the 'natural' data structure which is its output--are
> > inherently matters of local expertise and local need at each processing
> > node. Let those who promulgate general specifications define the thinnest
> > possible layers precisely to have the greatest possibility of having each
> > of them accepted for the greatest range of divergent uses by the widest
> > variety of processors.
>
>[Henry Thomson]
>I think this is the right approach... which is why I always tell people that
>XML is just data, and that the application determines it's interpretation.

It will come as no surprise that I disagree with Henry here. Lets step back
from the engineering for a moment and look at the commercial realities
of "XML is just syntax" and "its all a matter of application interpretation".
The facts of the matter are that vendors cannot believe their luck. Here
is this thing - XML - that has massive upwave support and mindshare
and yet is trivially usurped into a marketing ploy for lock-in.

We use XML therefore <insert vendor lock-in ruse here>.

It seems people on this list live in different universes. All around me
I see XML that is as proprietary to particular vendors as their
native "binary" notations where. I see the open systems *spirit* that
is implicit in XML jettisoned while the *syntax* of XML - the only
thing explicit in the standard - is used to create new proprietary
notations.

At this rate XML will never be "the new ASCII". But it stands a very
good chance of being "the new RTF".

despondently,
Sean