[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 03:36 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> and Gavin concludes:
>
> "The standardization efforts within a given domain might well normatively
> define themselves in terms of the syntax and infoset defined elsewhere..."
Note that I said "might well", I didn't say "should", or "must" and you also
left off an important bit:
"...but that doesn't mean the syntax and infoset are responsible for
interoperability."
In other words (and as I've said) I do not think that having a single syntax
or infoset results in interoperability at the application/software component
level*. It might *simplify* things for a specific set of applications, but
that's about it.
> XML-SW is as close as any proposal I've seen put forward that
> gets the most benefits for the best sharing of the pain of the
> implementation. I would think it in the best interests of the
> W3C and the XML community to start there.
I disagree. As I said at the start of the thread, XML-SW bundles namespaces,
xml:space, xml:lang, xml:base and infoset, which I think is a mistake.
----
* Scheme/LISP proved that...
|
