Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > 4) Accept from the outset that processing--and therefore the processing > > model, its order of operations, and the particular form of data input which > > it expects and the 'natural' data structure which is its output--are > > inherently matters of local expertise and local need at each processing > > node. Let those who promulgate general specifications define the thinnest > > possible layers precisely to have the greatest possibility of having each > > of them accepted for the greatest range of divergent uses by the widest > > variety of processors. > >[Henry Thomson] >I think this is the right approach... which is why I always tell people that >XML is just data, and that the application determines it's interpretation. It will come as no surprise that I disagree with Henry here. Lets step back from the engineering for a moment and look at the commercial realities of "XML is just syntax" and "its all a matter of application interpretation". The facts of the matter are that vendors cannot believe their luck. Here is this thing - XML - that has massive upwave support and mindshare and yet is trivially usurped into a marketing ploy for lock-in. We use XML therefore <insert vendor lock-in ruse here>. It seems people on this list live in different universes. All around me I see XML that is as proprietary to particular vendors as their native "binary" notations where. I see the open systems *spirit* that is implicit in XML jettisoned while the *syntax* of XML - the only thing explicit in the standard - is used to create new proprietary notations. At this rate XML will never be "the new ASCII". But it stands a very good chance of being "the new RTF". despondently, Sean
|
