Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:57:26 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@i...> wrote: > > SOAP works. What about XML 1.0 keeps SOAP from working? > XML binaries are working. What about XML 1.0 prevents that? Nothing! Web services don't need anything different from XML, they just took what they needed. XML binary users don't care that what they're doing is anathema to some XML geeks. IMHO, XML needs to be concerned about these things for its own sake, not the sake of diverse communities of users. The question is whether "XML" will mean anything as a brand/label after another 5 years of this success. It might become about as meaningful as "LISP" or "SQL" (without qualifiers) -- a generic term describing a general approach, but not anything that interoperates out of the box. The way forward that I suggest is continuous refactoring to keep the Core "core" and the de-facto optional parts separated. I don't want the data-heads to drive static typing into the core to the detriment of the docheads, but neither do I want the dochead stuff such as entities to be inflicted on the data-heads now that the costs are becoming apparent. The SOAP people aren't harmed by simply ignoring DTDs, but XML is harmed if there is no formal way to distinguish "XML as practiced by SOAP" from "XML as practiced by Docbook".
|
