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

[Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@rbii.com>]

On Saturday 24 November 2001 05:49 am, Sean McGrath wrote:
> >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".
. . .
> 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.

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with that: I have the exact same problem that you do 
with this. The fact is though that an XML document is just bits until 
something pulls meaning out of it. You can never say that an XML document has 
some intrinsic set of semantics... because interpretation is always dependent 
upon the interpreter (that's the framing problem). 

I have no problem with trying to create standardised vocabularies where they 
make sense. My point was that we're better off embracing the fact that the 
applications of XML will be many and varied, and doing as little as possible 
to ensure their success. Hardwiring things like ID certainly doesn't fit that 
bill, as again, in all the applications I've ever built (including the CONREF 
application), I NEVER needed that information beyond the initial validation 
step.