Re: 1.c-d: Define a Link Processor and Communicate With It? (repost)
Jon Bosak wrote:
> [Len Bullard:]
> | We keep getting caught on the problems of making information portable
> | while keeping systems interoperable, so maybe we just have to say, XML
> | does not do interoperability except insofar as two communicators agree
> | to use the same processor specification.
> I don't think this works. A key reason that HTML is successful is
> because it provides a basic set of common understandings. Without a
> basic set of common understandings, communication is impossible.
Hmmm... yes, Jon. Contracts are about enforceable agreements. No
The basic understandings are HTML and the URL approach. We can't
assume the former. What understandings will we assume? It is
because they extend HTML without agreements (violate the contract) and
use the market
to work out the differences that they have interoperation problems
now. So far, we can only assume portability based on syntax.
HTML includes ACTION="post" | "get". Can we use XML hyperlinking
to build controls with predictable behaviors unless we agree on the
behaviors? We can agree on indirection although they may still
elect not to do that with all of the implied compromises to
portability. How do we agree on what we indirect to? As soon as
controls are interlaced with data, we have this conflict of interest.