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

Dan Connolly wrote:

> Please direct your suggestions to Chris
> in particular (with copy to www-tag) as
> he has the action to do the next draft for review
> of section 3 on formats.

When discussing "interoperability", it might be useful to contrast "guaranteed interoperability"
--i.e. where the receiver can always accept the data correctly-- with  "robustness"
--i.e. where the receiver will always fail if it cannot accept the data correctly--.

These are in distinct from "unreliablility".  XML has never had guaranteed interoperability
but it has had robustness.   E.g. an XML processor is not required to parse ISO 8859-1
documents, but is supposed to fail.

Some people just need "robustness": for example, people making data available on the
WWW in the most convenient form for the sender. 

Others may need "guaranteed interoperability", but niche-users can get this now by 
profiling XML.  So I suspect the emphasis should be robustness as the bottom line.

Rick Jelliffe

Received on Sunday, 16 February 2003 07:27:56 UTC