[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
The "essence"? Disapprovingly? No. I
simply don't like to see the clarity of
the XML 1.0 specification muddied by attempts
to use XML as a brand name for platforms.
That's retrograde.
1. XML is a syntax defined by its BNF in the
XML 1.0 specification.
2. XML platforms are software whose definition
depending on the specifications used, can be
both non-standard and unreliable. I said "can be".
3. XML application languages are defined in
terms of the XML 1.0 specification or other
languages derived from it such as XML Schema.
These languages may have platform data models.
4. XML The Brand Name is a term some are
making up to conflate platforms and XML. This
is confusing and wreaks havoc in the non-expert
understanding of XML.
5. Interoperability is a property of platforms,
not specifications or standards. Depending on
the means chosen to interact with a platform
and to move information among platforms, interoperability
reliability varies by combinations of platforms. Experience
shows the most reliable means is to rely on the
syntax of the XML 1.0 specification. This is
not to say that other means cannot be reliable
but this varies by combination of particular
platforms and application language data models.
I don't disapprove of the infoset. I do understand
the data model approach to platforms and their
implementation of application languages. But these
are not XML. XML is a syntax specification. It
is not a brand name. Going down that path opens
the door to closed system vendor dominated transactions
and systems. The markup community has worked for
too many years to break the logjam of homogeneous
systems design to stand idly and watch this progress
lost to fuzzy marketing terminology. This I have
to fight.
len
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
As Martin Gudgin says in the piece that Len quoted (disapprovingly?)
My objective is very much like Tim's -- to maximize the value of the XML
"brand name". That requires careful consideration of what is of the essence.
|
