[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 12:57 PM -0400 4/11/04, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>The improper use of an 'XML' label is a fair concern. On the other
>hand, its use, qualified so as to indicate that it is something
>different or additional, is a signal that something is working to
>maintain a majority of semantics and idioms of XML.
>
Additional, fine. (Think XML Namespaces, XSLT, XML Schema, XML Query
Language, xml:id, etc.) none of which in any way alter the basic
nature of XML.
Different: not OK. If it's not a text format fully compatible with
the XML specification, then it's not XML, and please don't use the
word "XML" (or preferably the initial letter X) to describe it. XML
is text. XML is syntax. XML is not the infoset. The infoset is
derived from XML, not the other way around. SAX and DOM are are APIs
for processing XML. XML is not a serialization format for SAX and
DOM. Alternate representations of the Infoset are not XML. Alternate
formats that expose a SAX or DOM API are not XML.
Merely maintaining the "semantics and idioms of XML" (not that I
think that will actually be done when the rubber hits the road) is
insufficient to justify the use of the label XML. As Tim Bray once
said, "If you bring an application to market and wave the XML banner,
what that means to me is that you're willing to accept input in XML,
and you'll give me back information in XML, without stealing any of
it."
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@metalab.unc.edu
Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
|
