Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Ask them. If you believe the REST contingent, SOAP has flaws. However, I suspect that the lack of strong types and the possibilities of open ended DTD designs with entities made them nervous. SOAP has a very narrow application scope. Too many want too much control where a little experimentation is sufficient. I often see the other end of this where systems are exchanging data loosely and discover XML is overkill syntactically, but that the ability to specify a contract to which documents/messages will be built that is machine-verifiable has way more value than say, namespaces. As is being said, people with definite implementations have definite opinions. I'm seeing application languages being proposed that will have narrow scopes of application. That's fine as long as the rant and hype match the scope. Otherwise, its just more rant and hype and the locals still do what they must on time and under budget. There is the tendency when *building buzz* (a stupid tactic but accepted as gospel), to try to enumerate all the possible applications of a given artifact. That pulls in a lot keyword-match driven mentalities who arrive with definite requirements that can't be met by the design. Then the NonFun starts. That is why so many efforts are in the bog. The originators see that the product will be too complicated for them, and the come-latelies are left maneuvering politically to get control to ensure their implementations are included. Pretty soon, the list is one or two people hollering into the 'net to no one. DTDs: use them where needed. Be smart about that. Where and when aren't always obvious going into the project. Preserve options. But toss them out? Heck, namespaces are more trouble than they are worth for some applications but those are almost a divine dispensation in some eyes. I'm saying, if there is no clear reason, do nothing. That's usually best. XML 2.0 will be a botch if it is too complicated or too simpleminded, but DTDs have proven their value. len *building buzz*: 1. a tactic used to recruit people to do work for free that the builders can't do for money. 2. a tactic used to recruit people with money to pay people to do work that they won't do for free. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...] 5/17/2002 10:20:56 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote: >XML has caught the hem of its skirt on a nail in the >door frame. > >Take out DTDs and comma-delimited ASCII is more attractive >than ever. <rising to the bait :~) /> OK, so why did the SOAP folks not find comma-delimited ASCII suitable for their needs? And why did they determine that DTDs cause more trouble than they are worth?
|
