Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
IMHO, there's no magic in the pointy brackets of the specific syntax of XML, all of the magic is in the agreement on a small set of rules, idioms, conventions, certain types of flexibility, and a path to building on that base. That is why keeping everything but the specific syntax still feels like XML+ to many of us. In spite of that, I can see value in coming up with an alternate term that conveys the above meaning and distinction. Possibly: XIS = eXtensible Info Set XIS - binary-structure-encoding == XML - pointy-bracket-structure-encoding Just saying that XML - pointy-bracket-encoding == NULLSET, not-worth-talking-about, unrelatable-to-XML, of-no-use-to-anybody, not-allowed-to-leverage-XML-progress is not helpful. Until we come to a solid concensus on such a name, it's difficult to convey "just like XML except for the structure encoding" without using "XML". sdw Rich Salz wrote: >> Can we stop arguing about whether a binary alternative to XML >> is, can, or should be called "XML"? The case has been made over and >> over again that if it ain't pointy brackets and all the other stuff in >> the XML specifications, then it ain't XML! > > > I think that when even a W3C Activity Lead uses the "wrong" term, as > recently as a couple of weeks ago, that it is premature to call for an > end to discussion about the terminology. > > Sure, in many cases here it is preaching to the choir, but it's not a > universal meme yet. > /r$ > -- swilliams@h... http://www.hpti.com Personal: sdw@l... http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
|
