- From: Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
- Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 10:41:02 -0600
- To: Jon Bosak <bosak@atlantic-83.Eng.Sun.COM>
- CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
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 argument there. 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. len
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 1997 11:51:59 UTC