RE: Proposed restatement of syntax-based interoperability princip le ( was RE: Action item on syntax-based interoperability)

And I am tempted to reply, which of the big words did you 
not understand?

A standard that provides an abstract model for the 
interoperating **system** (eg, X3D) is sufficient to enable 
two different implementors to create two different 
implementations for which a third author can write 
a document in any of the authorized encodings and expect 
it to operate with either of those implementations to some 
degree of rendering or behavioral fidelity.  Interoperation, 
on the other hand, is at the level of the command verbs 
of two instances of the two implementations communicating 
to achieve mutually agreeable goals, behaving in mutually 
recogniable ways.  Data is portable.  Systems interoperate.

Without a solid API, that will break down.  Syntax 
can do nothing to prevent that.  It just saves one some 
headaches of learning multiples.  Syntax is easy; the 
object model is hard. 

Syntax is a payload.  The network is the wire.  The 
syntax is bits on the wire.   One can have a very large 
very noisy network and nothing getting done.  Interacting 
is not interoperating.  

HTTP is the fundamental basis of interoperation of the 
real web.  Not the Internet mind you, but what common 
parlance considers 'the web'.

Syntax is not fundamental to interoperation.  Syntax 
eases the burdens of interoperating systems and 
reduces the costs.  It is not necessary. It is convenient. 
Lots of systems are interoperating on the web without 
a common syntax.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier Fehr [mailto:Olivier.Fehr@ofehr.com]

I am tempted to ask, and your point is?

Received on Monday, 27 October 2003 14:19:53 UTC