Lists Home |
Date Index |
>The problem is that it should have an underlying model, but it hasn't:
>>I couldn't disagree more. Defining the syntax without the underlying
data model *maximizes* interoperability
>>because it reduces the number of shared assumptions.
>>The notion that two organizations will share the data model for a
purchase order or a bill of materials is just silly,
Agreed. I'm not yearning for business level data model sharing when I talk
about XML interoperability problems.
All I want is an agreement about what comes out of a parser that is
guranteed to round trip through
an XML-in/XML-out process.
I cannot do that at the moment without resorting to adding infoset items
into contracts :-)
Actually, I can, I can buy all my tools from the same vendors and deploy
them at all ends of
my business process. So much for standards.
>but they can often deal with each others' serialized output.
In my experience, they always hit a bunch of gotchas if they stray beyond
the gang-of-four concepts of start-tag, end-tag, attribute and pcdata. Even
then, really simple sounding
things like white space, end-of-line handling etc. continue to *always* bite.
>The evidence in the field is overwhelmingly on my side.
My evidence from the field is different from Tim's. I guess I shouldn't
complain:-) Even in these harsh
ecomonic times there is tons of work for people like me solving pretty
rudimentary interop problems
they are having with XML.