[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
IMHO, there's no magic in the pointy brackets of the specific syntax of
XML, all of the magic is in the agreement on a small set of rules,
idioms, conventions, certain types of flexibility, and a path to
building on that base. That is why keeping everything but the specific
syntax still feels like XML+ to many of us.
In spite of that, I can see value in coming up with an alternate term
that conveys the above meaning and distinction. Possibly:
XIS = eXtensible Info Set
XIS - binary-structure-encoding == XML - pointy-bracket-structure-encoding
Just saying that
XML - pointy-bracket-encoding == NULLSET, not-worth-talking-about,
unrelatable-to-XML, of-no-use-to-anybody,
not-allowed-to-leverage-XML-progress
is not helpful.
Until we come to a solid concensus on such a name, it's difficult to
convey "just like XML except for the structure encoding" without using
"XML".
sdw
Rich Salz wrote:
>> Can we stop arguing about whether a binary alternative to XML
>> is, can, or should be called "XML"? The case has been made over and
>> over again that if it ain't pointy brackets and all the other stuff in
>> the XML specifications, then it ain't XML!
>
>
> I think that when even a W3C Activity Lead uses the "wrong" term, as
> recently as a couple of weeks ago, that it is premature to call for an
> end to discussion about the terminology.
>
> Sure, in many cases here it is preaching to the choir, but it's not a
> universal meme yet.
> /r$
>
--
swilliams@hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Personal: sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
|
