- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:21:02 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- CC: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
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
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 13:21:17 UTC