[Standards] whiteboarding and shared editing

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Wed Aug 15 16:40:22 UTC 2007


Greg Hudson wrote:
> A generic XML editor isn't going to know much about the semantics of the
> document it is editing.  It's not necessarily going to be a good
> framework for a whiteboarding application, any more than emacs is a good
> foundation for Photoshop.  They both edit files, but...
>   

Nobody is suggesting deploying a single editor for two different 
applications. We are suggesting that although the two editors would be 
designed for incompatible applications, they could talk the same 
protocol at the lowest level, and that they could therefore share a code 
library (just as many very different applications might use the same 
database engine).

I would have thought that, a *very low level* synchronised XML editing 
protocol suitable for SVG documents could be very similar to, for 
example, one for XHTML documents.

1. What significant differences do people see between two such *lowest* 
level protocols?
2. Could those differences be optional parts of a single low-level protocol?
3. What specific real-world disadvantages do people see if we use a 
single low level building-block protocol?

All XML editing applications share the same major challenge, i.e. the 
various issues surrounding synchronization. IMHO, the 
application-specific protocol issues tend to be relatively trivial to 
work out. So if we standardise on a good extensible synchronization 
protocol then we will facilitate many applications and avoid protocol 
designers reinventing the wheel.

- Ian




More information about the Standards mailing list