Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 03:36 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > and Gavin concludes: > > "The standardization efforts within a given domain might well normatively > define themselves in terms of the syntax and infoset defined elsewhere..." Note that I said "might well", I didn't say "should", or "must" and you also left off an important bit: "...but that doesn't mean the syntax and infoset are responsible for interoperability." In other words (and as I've said) I do not think that having a single syntax or infoset results in interoperability at the application/software component level*. It might *simplify* things for a specific set of applications, but that's about it. > XML-SW is as close as any proposal I've seen put forward that > gets the most benefits for the best sharing of the pain of the > implementation. I would think it in the best interests of the > W3C and the XML community to start there. I disagree. As I said at the start of the thread, XML-SW bundles namespaces, xml:space, xml:lang, xml:base and infoset, which I think is a mistake. ---- * Scheme/LISP proved that...
|
