[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
No quarrel other than being sure that people
who make and sell platforms don't get away
with telling people they are selling XML.
And that people who define InfoSets don't
confuse people into believing they are
defining XML. That is the path back to
homogeneous system darkness.
Infoset-driven specifications misunderstood
have the same effect as the poppies of the
Wicked Witch of the West. They put the mammals
to sleep and then one has to hope the Tin Man
(a machine) and the Scarecrow (brainless representations)
can save you. One magic spell is as good as
another in the Emerald City but don't try
to take the ruby slippers back to Kansas.
They don't work there.
To Oz? To Oz!
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
And Tim Bray said "it would be disastrous if you were able to advertise to some
external party that you provide XML, and then offered anything but
unicode-with-angle-brackets." Well, I don't think it's either
terrifying or disastrous to have a menu of standardized infoset
serializations
available -- e.g., things like WikiML for human authoring, something like
WBXML (what little I know of it) for constrained devices, something like
serialized
SAX events for high performance environments. I would totally agree that
either
calling an alternative "XML" without qualification would be stupid, but
presumably
this is a problem that HTTP content negotiation could handle easily if
someone offered
an alternative *standardized* "XML" serialization on their website.
|
