OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] heritage (was Re: [xml-dev] SGML on the Web)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

[Michael Kay]
 >The problem is that it should have an underlying model, but it hasn't:

[Tim Bray]
 >>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.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS