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

RE: Precise Definition for Interoperability Needed (Was RE: [Minu tes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting (why XML))

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:36:20 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACF00@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Sigh.... pedantic.  That is one reason y'all 
have trouble controlling this list.  You are 
playing the rhetorical strategy by which one 
controls the statement in order to control 
what the consensus is.

You have no way of supporting Paul's statement 
because you have no definition for what it means. 

Binary ensures interoperability.  Disprove that.

If you have done enough work with markup systems, 
you'll know that interoperability is defined in 
semantic, not syntactic terms.  As such and 
strictly, XML ensures data portability by 
providing a consistent syntax for marking up 
the content, and a vaguely defined processor 
for inputting and outputting a representation 
in accordance with that syntax; data 
portability enables systems interoperability.

I can live with that statement in a brochure. 
It doesn't belong in an architecture document 
unless you can show that it is architecturally 


-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]

So you don't have any issues with the architecture document, a current
issue, nor do you wish to raise a new issue?

As such, I think that the minutes accurately reflect Paul's statement.  I
certainly wouldn't feel shame in saying the same statement.  The TAG
document, nor any findings or issues, provide a formal definition of
interoperability.  And I think that's by design so far.

I don't think any changes are needed to the minutes.
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 14:37:01 UTC

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