[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I think it comes down to tightly bound system specific
schemas that the software development entity may own
and control, and public schemas where the namespace is
owned and controlled by some entity that meets the definition
of "public". The efficiency of the mapping determines the
interoperability made possible by any portable definition
of the properties.
Of course, the dilemma is when a public entity
tightly binds a public schema to a system. Because we
wrestled with that so often in the days of CALS, then
watched a private consortium be given the mandate to
create the web specs aka, standards, I remain skeptical
until I see the result and then base adoption on utility.
That you consider the question "vast" is a good sign. It
isn't as easy as simply publishing a spec.
len
From: bryan [mailto:bry@itnisk.com]
>I would be interested in someone explaining just
>how an XML Schema for any WYSIWYG system can be
>"open" for some qualitative definition of "open".
I think in this context the word Open is meant to indicate seamless
transportation between Office applications and importation of an xml
document from one vendor's application into another vendor's answering
application.
|
