[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Urrrrp! No. It is the smaller corporations
who have to be strict because they have a lot
fewer resources for negotiating out what is
signal and what is noise. John Cowan is
right for the mainstream.
It isn't about big vs small; it is about
what can be afforded. If my XML experts can't
negotiate the instances, we have to rely on the
DTD or Schema. If they can negotiate the DTD
or Schema, I can afford to ship only well-formed.
Do I have to rely on their code as the contract
for all the instances?
Be careful of replying in the affirmative to
the last one, because if you do, you have
made Microsoft's case and given AOL only
one way to go from here.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
1/27/2002 5:16:27 PM, "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
wrote:
> At the syntactical level - only ship well-formed content
> if you call it XML - I'm happy to agree completely.
>
> Above that, there's lots and lots of room for disagreement.
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."
|
