[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion wrote:
>
>...
>
> I agree with Simon. For example, my canonical example of an order;
> if you want to stay in business, you'll be liberal in the vocabulary
> and structure you accept so long as it is well-formed and the
> information you need to process and validate it (in the business
> sense, not the XML sense) is in there somewhere.
How will you write software to verify that the information you need is
in there? Isn't the easiest way just to check it against the schema?
> ... Nobody but a
> handful of mega-corps will be able to get away with saying "if you
> want to do business with us, you need to use our schemata."
Of course. But if we presume that there are third party schemata for
these sort of things then how is requring conformance to them any
different than requiring XML well-formedness or Unicode well-formedness
or conformance to the IP RFC? It is precisely the small companies who
cannot afford to try to write software that is "approximately correct."
First, there is the difficulty of writing such software (cf. the
implementation of a legacy HTML parser). Second, there is the risk in
misinterpreting a document and blowing a budget on building/shipping a
product the customer really didn't want and won't pay for.
Paul Prescod
|
