Lists Home |
Date Index |
> Where you at Extreme in Montreal?!?! I wish I had met you. In fact,
> I probably did! Let's hope we can meet again "same time next year."
Let's hope so :)
>> If you define both [a syntax and a data model], then you've got
>> something that can be exchanged between different applications in a
>> standard way, and that will be processed in the same way by each
> Well, I think Walter Perry would take a percentage of issue with
> that. Let's think of content as oh, say, pig iron. It's great that
> there are standards for pig iron, because then you get what you pay
> for ("exchanged"), the furnaces don't blow up ("processed"). That's
> what XML does. But "*will*" be processed is too strong.
Yes, sorry. I should have said *can* be processed. My point is that if
the data model and the syntax get standardised together then, as well
as being able to use them independently with other syntaxes and data
models, you can use them in conjunction, and that gives you a big win.
XML is almost there because, as Patrick's pointed out, and Michael
S-McQ said in his keynote, the tree model is pretty much implicit in