[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Alaric B Snell writes:
>> "ConciseXML" is *not* compatible with XML 1.0.
> Doesn't that depend on what you mean by compatability?
According to Merriam Webster's on-line dictionary, "compatible" is
defined as follows:
1) capable of existing together in harmony <compatible theories>
2) capable of cross-fertilizing freely or uniting vegetatively
3) capable of forming a homogeneous mixture that neither separates
nor is altered by chemical interaction
4) capable of being used in transfusion or grafting without
immunological reaction (as agglutination or tissue rejection)
5) designed to work with another device or system without
modification; especially: being a computer designed to operate
in the same manner and use the same software as another
computer
While definition (1) is marvelous in this context, it clearly does not
apply. Definitions (2) to (4) come from the field of biology /
chemistry and do not really apply here either.
Obviously, definition (5) is the one that we should consider in this
case, and if you read it carefully, it uses the term "without
modification". Unmodified ConciseXML is _not_ XML. Thus, you could
argue that XML is compatible to ConciseXML, but not vice versa.
The term that in my humble opinion describes the relationship between
the two best is that they are _equivalent_, because they can be
converted to one another without loss of information. Mathematically
speaking, they are _not_ equivalent, of course, because there is no
bijective transformation between the two. Unless, there is a
well-defined canonic form of ConciseXML that I am not aware of.
To me personally, ConciseXML sounds like a poor man's SGML, and the
mere fact that the company owning it does not release it into the
public domain, but is willing to "license" it -- albeit free of charge,
they claim -- does prevent it from being adopted as a useful standard.
Peter
|
