• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Caught napping!
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 11:13:00 -0800
• In-reply-to: <3BF0B887.C0F6461@r...>
• References: <200111102048.PAA11544@h...><3BEF8749.87CD5F1D@r...><3BEFD820.FE803A93@f...>

At 10:07 PM 12/11/01 -0800, Ronald Bourret wrote:
>Out of curiousity, how many people think of XML in text terms, not model
>terms? My guess is that even proponents of well-formed XML eventually
>fall into the model camp, but I'm not sure.

As I've said before, 

1. the only normative definitions of XML, and of Namespaces,
   operate almost completely at a syntactic level.  
2. I've been in software for 20 years and I've seen lots
   of interoperable cross-platform syntax and very rarely
   an interoperable cross-platform data structure or API.

Obviously, once you're dealing with some XML inside of
a program, you think in terms of the structure.  But XML's
interoperability is strongly linked to the fact that 
its definition is syntactic.  -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Caught napping!
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>

• References:
  • Re: Caught napping!
    • From: Dan Weinreb <dlw@e...>
  • Re: Caught napping!
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: Caught napping!
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
  • Re: Caught napping!
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by Date: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Previous by thread: Re: Caught napping!
• Next by thread: Re: Caught napping!
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread