On 4/22/2018 5:50 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>
> Well, let's say you create an extension to a popular word processing
> format that provides enhances the content, but only if used with your
> software.
>
> Isn't that a form of vendor lock-in, even if practiced by an
> individual contractor?
>
No. Every use of XML is talking to yourself in a form convenient for
certain processing tools. Assuming that the rest of the world should
understand your mumblings is a strange (if often profitable) conceit.
There are so many options for vendor lock-in beyond file formats these
days that I don't think leaving a schema open deserves a mention.
> Being mindful of a Netware installation many years ago where the
> "backup" copy of the boot disk was in fact delivered blank. Not
> discovered until after the contractor had pulled up stakes and moved
> to Arizona.
>
> True, you could still read the XML but the costs of re-creating a
> one-off application from scratch could be, not necessarily would be,
> prohibitive.
>
> Yes?
>
If the XML was especially deranged, and you needed every detail of what
it might have meant, perhaps. At some point obfuscated markup resembles
encryption. (That can be true even with a complete schema and
documentation, though people tend to confess such things only in bars.)
Normally, though, it's just an extraction problem, amenable to guesses
and XSLT (or similar).
> Hope you are having a great weekend!
>
Sunshine and jetlag. Who could ask for more?
Thanks,
Simon
