Subject: RE: XML and ASP
From: Michael.Orr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 01:14:11 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vun Kannon, David [mailto:dvunkannon@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 2:25 PM
> To: 'xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: RE: XML and ASP
> We have found no difficulty in pursuing the implementation of 
> large (three
> tier) applications, which use XML vocabularies for message passing
> throughout, without recourse to  applications doing the equivalent of 
> 	theXML = "<tag>" + myContent + "</tag>"
> Every XML document is built via the DOM API or a stylesheet.

Excellent. I've got no argument whatsoever with that practice. My motive in
commenting was a concern that you were (or could be taken to be) advising
that app specifications should be drawn at the level of the property set,
which IMO could cause problems where you need to integrate another DOM
implementation or track evolutions of the model over multiple releases. 

> We do use XML texts during use case definition as a way of 
> establishing a
> "service level agreement" between the developers of the 
> different tiers.

This is precisely the type of situation where the relatively mature and
well-defined status of the XML 1.0 spec, as compared in particular to
Infoset, is of great service. I took you to be discouraging such an
approach; clearly that concern was unfounded! 

While we're here, I'm delighted to acknowledge that yesterday's publication
of the first Infoset WD is a big step toward letting application development
rest on an appropriate content abstraction, as you rightly advise. 

Best regards, 

Michael Orr, CTO, VP R&D
Design Intelligence Inc, Seattle WA USA
phone:206-718-2103  fax:206-343-7750

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread