Page 38 - GAO-02-327 Electronic Government: Challenges to Effective Adoption of the Extensible Markup Language

Chapter 2: A Comprehensive Set of Standards
for Implementing XML Is Only Partially in
Place

Table 4: XML Technical Standards as of February 2002

Technical standards Description Comments
Extensible Markup Language Core standard for XML language. 1st edition approved for implementation
(XML) 1.0 February 1998; 2nd edition approved October
2000.
Extensible Stylesheet Language Core standard for formatting XML documents. V 1.0 approved for implementation, October
(XSL) 2001.
XML Schema Core standard for specifying the structure, Approved for implementation, May 2001.
content, and semantics of XML documents.
XML Namespaces Core standard for defining unique identifiers to Approved for implementation, January 1999.
qualify elements and attributes that may use the
same name.
Document Object Model (DOM) Generic method to dynamically access and Level 1 approved October 1998; Level 2,
update structure, content, and style of XML November 2000. Work under way on Level 3.
documents.
XML Path Language (XPath) Syntax to address specific parts of an XML V 1.0 approved, November 1999.
document.
XML Linking Language (XLink) Language defining how one document links with V 1.0 approved, June 2001.
another document.
Associating Style Sheets with Specification providing a method for associating V 1.0 approved, June 1999.
XML Documents a style sheet with an XML document.
Cannonical XML Specification describing a method to determine V 1.0 approved, March 2001.
whether two XML documents are identical or
whether an application has changed a
document.
XML Base Syntax to define base locations that contain V 1.0 approved, June 2001.
parts of XML documents.
XML Information Set Set of definitions for use by other specifications Approved, October 2001.
that need to refer to information in an XML
document.
XML-Signature Syntax and Syntax and processing rules for creating and Approved, February 2002.
Processing representing digital signatures in XML
documents.

Based on progress to date, W3C technical standards for XML are relatively
mature, even though work is still in progress on supplemental standards.
Most of the core technical standards were approved within 2 years of
being initially proposed, and the fact that commercial products are
increasingly being made compatible with XML appears to indicate that the
private sector is in general agreement with XML’s basic technical
infrastructure. For example, vendors providing XML-compatible products
include such companies as Ariba, Commerce One, IBM, Mercator,
Microsoft, Oracle, Sun, and WebMethods.

Page 34 GAO-02-327 Electronic Government