- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:36:20 -0600
- 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 significant. len -----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