Re: XML: The good, the bad, and the ugly

"Anne & Lynn Wheeler" <lynn_at_garlic.com> wrote in message news:ufz4azuim.fsf_at_mail.comcast.net...

> (self-describing) universal file format is about making it useable by
> different programs (other than the one that created the file) ... it
> is analogous to the dbms concept ... which also includes the concept
> of making it useable *concurrently* by different programs.
>
> data communication implies useable by different programs at different
> locations ... however not having data communication doesn't preclude
> having different programs at the same location.

Maybe I'm misusing the term "communication". But I think of communication as transferring data (or information) between one "locus" and another. That could mean moving it from one continent to another, or from one chip on a board to another chip on the same board, or from one gate in a chip to another gate in the same chip. It could also mean moving it from one person to another.

I also think of two programs, one that writes a file and one that reads a file, to have "moved" the data from one "locus" to another. I even think of the messages that fly around inside an object oriented system as "communication" between the objects.

It's not my purpose to use standard terms in a non-standard way. So, if there really is a standard meaning for the term "communication" that precludes the above usage, then I'm in the market for another term. But so far, I haven't found the other term, or a definitive rule that says I shouldn't use "communication" this way.

I'm not trying to confuse things, honest! Received on Tue Oct 19 2004 - 16:05:40 CEST