Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 11:14 24/11/2001 +0000, Michael Kay wrote: > > 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. > >What are you trying to say, Sean? That no-one should be allowed to design >and use their own XML vocabularies unless TimBL first signs it off as >approved? Of course not. I am arguing for a data model for XML. There is no conflict between having a data model for XML - so that we all know what the parsing *layers* do and emit - and having user defined vocabularies! >In that case you've missed the point. The whole success of XML is that it >standardizes the protocol stack up to layer six while still allowing >infinite variety at layer seven for consenting parties to exchange any >information they like. Layer six! I presume you are talking about the ISO 7 layered model of computer commmunication services and protocols. I don't see that XML has much to do with layers 1 to 5 so I don't see how XML can claim a success here. regards, Sean
|
