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

RE: Action item on syntax-based interoperability

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:52:53 -0700
Message-ID: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E522678C4@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

> > data model are already evident in enabling deployment of XPath, and
> > will soon be far more evident in deployment of XQuery.
> 
> I agree entirely.  But what does this have to do specially with
> *networked* information systems in general and the Web in particular?
> 
> Remember, this is about the architecture of the Web, not a general
> collection of sermons about goodness in technologies that are modern,

OK, if you are constraining the scope this minimally, then fine.  But
XSLT, XPath, and XQuery play a large part in enabling interop between
systems on the net.  And I would argue that XSD depends on a concept of
a shared data model as well.  

And I thought I detected a certain hostility toward the data model
concept -- data model interop may be out of scope, but it is certainly
not a bad thing, especially in the specific case where we take data
model to mean the general model that enables XPath, XSLT and XQuery.  I
totally understand your gripes about APIs like DOM, and I also agree
that it would be incorrect to say that data model is more important than
syntax (for example, it is wrong to say that binary XML is equivalent to
text XML "because they both just serve as serialization for the data
model, which is primal").  In other words, syntax *is* primal, but that
doesn't mean data model is unimportant -- data model is subordinate to
syntax, but it is very nice gravy.
Received on Friday, 24 October 2003 22:52:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:22 GMT