• From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:33:07 -0400

David Carlisle wrote:

> It would have been a disaster if every XML process had had to use 
> whichever XML parser came first, or had to use the DOM for example.

Thanks David. I realize that I was not clear on this.

The XML Processor is a perfect example of my thesis. The class of XML Processors is the Prime App for XML. At the very heart of XML interoperability is the XML Processor. Xerces-J, Xerces-C++, and Expat are instantiations of the Prime App. One XML Processor may be selected over another because it is smaller or faster or is implemented in a particular programming language. But they all behave the same way (at least theoretically).

Here's another example: For (X)HTML the Prime App is the class of Web browsers. Firefox and IE are instantiations of the Prime App.


/Roger

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: Data Interoperability ... Why do some XML vocabulariesspecify meaning + behavior whereas others specify only meaning?
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>

• References:
  • Data Interoperability ... Why do some XML vocabularies specifymeaning + behavior whereas others specify only meaning?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: Data Interoperability ... Why do some XML vocabularies specifymeaning + behavior whereas others specify only meaning?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • Re: RE: Data Interoperability ... Why do some XML vocabulariesspecify meaning + behavior whereas others specify only meaning?
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>