[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
<snip>
> According to the first definition of "compatibility" in
> Merriam-Webster: compatibility: capable of existing together in
> harmony
>
> I believe ConciseXML fits that definition.
So?
A good working definition of what "compatible" might mean to the markup
community comes from the "for compatibility" annotation to XML 1.0 (found
at http://www.xml.com/axml/testaxml.htm):
SGML Compatibility
...
2. XML instances are SGML documents as they are, without changes to
the instance.
Therefore, by this definition, if ConciseXML documents were XML documents
"without changes to the instance" then they could claim to be
"compatible" with XML.
FYI, another annotation on why this goal was considered important when the
spec was developed:
Being compatible with SGML is a real virtue, for several
reasons:
* It allows the use of the rich inventory of existing
SGML tools on XML documents.
* It protects document owners from vendor rape; a demand
for standards-compliance is one of the few defenses an
information producer has against the natural desires of
the software vendor to lock his data into the vendor's
products.
Note especially the second bullet point.
Although the Annotations are not part of the spec, I do think they can be
regarded as summarizing the markup community's views on this matter.
Of course, it's nice to see SGML minimization techniques ("</>")
re-invented. It would be a fun exercise to see if ConciseXML was, if not
XML compliant, SGML conformant!
Sam Hunting
eTopicality, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Turn your searching experience into a finding experience."(tm)
Topic map consulting and training: www.etopicality.com
Free open source topic map tools: www.gooseworks.org
XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
