[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
This is why the definition of interoperability has to
be looked at critically as I showed earlier in the
response to Doug Ransom and in my mail on the TAG list
to Chris.
o exchange information - "ability of two or more systems or components
to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged [IEEE 90]".
Perry is there.
o request services - "ability of systems to provide services to and accept services from other
systems and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively
together".
Web services are there.
o interchangeable parts - "be functionally equivalent or interchangeable components of
the system or process in which they are used".
I'm not sure if anyone is there if XML 1.0 doesn't define a processor and
the infoset varies too much among the application languages. Maybe parsers.
Still...
One should decide where along that almost continuum
one is "interoperating". Otherwise, saying
"XML provides interoperability" leads to these
grinding permathreads and we are kidding ourselves
about the value of a new subset.
len
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
W. E. Perry scripsit:
> As last week's discussion made clear, such processors are non-conformant to
> the XML Rec. That is the reason de jure not to create documents intended for
> such processors and then call either those documents or those processors
> 'XML'.
Let's not overdo it here. Such processors are not XML, but the documents
they accept certainly are.
|
