• To: 'Chiusano Joseph' <chiusano_joseph@b...>
• Subject: RE: The subsetting has begun
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:04:13 -0600
• Cc: 'John Cowan' <jcowan@r...>, wperry@f..., xml-dev@l...

But if we define a new subset/core, what does 
that do to definition 3:  interchangeable parts? 
Today, the parsers are reasonably interchangeable. 
So are the gains worth the cost of introducing a 
new class of parser?

len

From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@b...]

<Quote>
Otherwise, saying "XML provides interoperability" leads to these 
grinding permathreads and we are kidding ourselves 
about the value of a new subset.
</Quote>

Absolutely agree. XML does not provide interoperability - the use and
correct implementation of common vocabularies (and the correct use of
XML of course) provide interoperability.


"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> o interchangeable parts -  "be functionally equivalent or interchangeable components of
>   the system or process in which they are used".

• Prev by Date: Re: The waterfall model lives?
• Next by Date: Re: Registered Namespace prefixes
• Previous by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Next by thread: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread