Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Ann Navarro wrote: > XML, in good part, is about *not needing* to pick one single way to do > things. You don't need to have people declaring 'best viewed in X browser' > any longer. > > There's nothing incompatible nor non-interoperable about well-formed and > valid XML. There's nothing /syntactically/ inoperable about it, no, but at least some of the problems with, say, viewing the same HTML page in different browsers are /semantic/ - they're to do with how you display (i.e. interpret) a given element/attribute. If you want to be semantically interoperable XML per se isn't going to help much. As far as this particular debate goes, there can be a great deal of inoperability if someone decides to mark up a text with less "granularity" than is required for the structure someone else is trying to fit it into. -- Richard Lanyon (Software Engineer) | "The medium is the message" XML Script development, | - Marshall McLuhan DecisionSoft Ltd. | *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
