ISSUE-3: What Motivates XML Syntax?
What Motivates XML Syntax?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- (no longer used) Design Constraints (Goals, Requirements)
- Raised by:
- Deborah Nichols
- Opened on:
- 2006-08-15
- Description:
- Raised by: Unknown. Posted to Issues by Deborah Nichols [DLN].
Which CSFs (other than Alignment) does the XML syntax requirement support?
Issue: As it stands, this is a question. If there is an issue here, needs to
be sharpened. I cannot tell whether this is a request for information, or an
implied objection to the XML syntax Requirement. [DLN]
Pointer to the XML syntax requirement:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Requirements#req-xml-syntax.
[This was item 1 in:
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/UCR/Document_issues.]
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- No related emails
Related notes:
Originally, the intention was that XML syntax could support both the interoperability and the
extensibility CSFs.
1. Interoperability is enhanced by adopting XML because there are many tools that can parse and
process XML to some extent. For example, XSLT might be used to process RIF data sets. If the RIF
adopted a non-XML syntax then this kind of tooling flexiblity would be lost.
2. The extensibility CSF is supported by XML in a relatively weak sense. Part of the semantics of XML is
the default assumption that any tool processing an XML structure that it did not directly understand
should ignore that structure. This represents a strategy for extensibility that the RIF could adopt. (Not
all specifications do adopt this: SOAP 2.0 with the \'must understand\' flag directly contradicts this aspect
of XML semantics.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Sep/0067.html
26 Sep 2006, 00:00:00Closed by consensus on the 10/10/06 telecon
10 Oct 2006, 00:00:00Display change log
