Someone usually does.   The SGMLers 
understand it and practiced it virtually 
like a religion (the SGML Way).  It gets 
messy however to ignore processing contexts 
if systems are to interoperate without 
human interventions.   A reason for 
understanding what features XML Schema, 
RELAX NG and/or Schematron enable is to
pick the right tool to get the right 
strength of agreement.  (Am I the only 
one who considers Schematron almost 
heroic?  It is the one piece the others 
need consistently and why I am holding 
out for DSDL.)

XML starts a layer of agreements.  It 
fixes the first layer and then lets/insists 
that humans work out the rest.  It is the 
authoritative scope of their results that 
befuddles and entangles.  That is part of the 
messiness of mixing up standards and specs. 
It quickly becomes a power trip insteaad 
of an enabling activity.

<offtopic> There was a special last night on the History 
Channel where a four star from the NSA perfectly 
explained these distinctions.  It was a hopeful 
omen that there are pockets of authorities with a 
job to do who understand their job within the 
scope of their authority.</offtopic> 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Murali Mani [mailto:mani@[...].EDU]


Is this data vs information well-known?? -- XML is for exchange of data,
but XML with schema is for exchange of information.

I like that, but was wondering -- someone should have already said this..

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>