Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 02:51 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > >You'll have to excuse me here, because you're leaping from syntax and > > infosets to software components. That leap is a source of confusion IMHO. > > Fair statement, but I don't think interop comes from syntax, just > data portability and yes, I don't discount the value of a shared > syntax. Interop means "something is operating" and that might > just be a parser, but it is something. That's the whole point though. I don't see interoperability coming only from common syntax, nor from a single infoset. Application/software level interoperability can only happen through standardization within a given application domain.... it's outside the scope of the efforts of the W3C. The standardization efforts within a given domain might well normatively define themselves in terms of the syntax and infoset defined elsewhere, but that doesn't mean the syntax and infoset are responsible for interoperability.
|
