• From: Sean McGrath <sean@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:54:54 +0000

At 12:07 PM 11/10/00 -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote:

>On the contrary, I think he believes in interoperability
>more than many others as he does not see complance as an
>all-or-nothing game.    CommonXML is a shining example of
>this push for interoperability in our less than perfect world.

+1.

For years I went to SGML conferences and heard people
claim 100% SGML compliance for their tools. In all cases,
from an interoperability perspective, this was a useless
claim. Interoperability did not "drop out" of SGML compliance
and it does not "drop out" of XML compliance either.

Fact: interoperability with XML is not a no-brainer.
Fact: Common XML is an honest attempt at making
XML interoperability a no brainer.
Fiction: Common XML is dangerous.

The *real *danger lies in burying ones head in the
sand, pretending that interopability with XML is a done
deal - even in a world of 100% compliant parsers.

Just as music is the stuff between the notes, I'm afraid
that true interoperability seems to be the stuff
between the standards.

Sean
Sean McGrath
CTO
Propylon - Enabling Universal Mobility
http://www.propylon.com
Tel: +353 1 6620482

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Subsetting/ Canonical Parsers/ XML Compliance/ etc.
• Next by Date: RE: Dangers of De Facto (WAS RE: Dangers of Subsetting?)
• Previous by thread: RE: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Next by thread: Re: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread