W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

RE: [Minutes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting (why XML)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:08:10 -0600
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-id: <1044976089.2345.230.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

If your message isn't about the meeting record
(i.e. correction or some such), please change
the subject.

Better yet, start a whole new thread and excerpt
from the minutes.

Also, we ask that you make it clear whether you're
  * suggesting text for the arch doc
  * discussing an open issue
  * raising a new issue


  "General discussion about the Web should take
  place on www-talk@w3.org."
   -- http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/#tips

On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:42, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Re Section 3.4:  
> "PC: Main reason to use XML is neutral format for interoperability 
> [Chris] 
> xml gives interop 
> major reason "
> This is a difficult concept without some definition of interoperability.
> As stated, it is a bit too breezy for an architecture document.  We've 
> had problems with the term "interoperability" since the CALS usage of 
> it for SGML.  It tends to imply that moving XML among systems is 
> sufficient to enable them to interoperate at the semantic level, 
> that is, blindly.  This is not the case.
> XML ensures portability of data.
> Portable data enables interoperability.
> Systems interoperate.  By definition, networked systems require selectors 
> to choose among equally probable options.  XML cannot in and 
> of itself, being a syntax, enable interoperability.  More is 
> required.  I'm not sure how one goes about saying what that 
> more is, except to relate it to the protocol verbs and interpretation 
> of the content of an XML document.
> len
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 10:08:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:36 UTC