Re: [xml-dev] KML is very extensible ... but why?

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

On 4/22/2018 5:50 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Well, let's say you create an extension to a popular word processing 
> format that provides enhances the content, but only if used with your 
> software.
>
> Isn't that a form of vendor lock-in, even if practiced by an 
> individual contractor?
No.  Every use of XML is talking to yourself in a form convenient for 
certain processing tools.  Assuming that the rest of the world should 
understand your mumblings is a strange (if often profitable) conceit.

There are so many options for vendor lock-in beyond file formats these 
days that I don't think leaving a schema open deserves a mention.

> Being mindful of a Netware installation many years ago where the 
> "backup" copy of the boot disk was in fact delivered blank. Not 
> discovered until after the contractor had pulled up stakes and moved 
> to Arizona.
>
> True, you could still read the XML but the costs of re-creating a 
> one-off application from scratch could be, not necessarily would be, 
> prohibitive.
>
> Yes?
If the XML was especially deranged, and you needed every detail of what 
it might have meant, perhaps.  At some point obfuscated markup resembles 
encryption.  (That can be true even with a complete schema and 
documentation, though people tend to confess such things only in bars.)

Normally, though, it's just an extraction problem, amenable to guesses 
and XSLT (or similar).

> Hope you are having a great weekend!
Sunshine and jetlag. Who could ask for more?

Thanks,
Simon