[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>[Mike Champion]
>
> > 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. 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."
[John Cowan]
>Ah, that's where architectural forms come in. They say "Mark up
>your XML document further by adding some attributes, so that
>we can figure out that what you mean by FOO is what we mean by BAR."
Unfortunately, in my experience, the AF approach is simple, elegant
and wrong.
The differences between real world schemata I find
myself working to converge for interchange/processing are orders of
magnitude beyond mere element type name mapping
and attribute suppression.
I have no problem with AFs as a mapping mechanism -
especially pipeline enabled such as you are envisaging
with AFNG. My problem is that people can read too much
into what you get with a mapping mechanism such as AF.
regards,
Sean
|
