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

On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 4:22:20 PM, Claude wrote:


BCLL> requires a more formal statement.

I would agree with that.

BCLL> o  the term 'interoperability' is vague and 
BCLL> has created misunderstanding in the past; a more 
BCLL> formal definition of the term is needed,

Yes. Clearly a common syntax does not, in and of itself, convey any
interoperability above the syntactic level. XML 1.0 or 1.1 provide a
common syntax and *that is all*, with the exception of

id
  an unscoped document-wide unique identifier
  
xml:lang
  a scoped description of the human language used.

Taking 'XML' in a wider scope of 'XML related specifications' then
typing based on the Infoset or the PSVI, common access methods via DOM
Core XML, relative URI reference disambiguation via xml:base,
hypermedia link recognition through XLink, and so on are additional
pieces of  benefit that the 'XML family' provides.

I agree there is good reason to differentiate "what XML 1.x provides"
from "what the XML family of spec provide" and this should be
clarified in the next draft.

BCLL> o a formal statement of the relationship of XML 
BCLL> to "interoperability" is needed if the cited text 
BCLL> remains.

Please feel free to suggest one that is aimed at the sort of
interoperability that XML does provide.


-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org