• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• From: "Ken North" <kennorth@s...>
• Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 13:11:00 -0700
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206FB3@h...>

> Still we are arguing generalities.  Why XML for messaging?

If you're invoking remote methods, you need to be concerned about the integrity
of parameters (or arguments). Otherwise you may not have consistent behavior.
XML provides interoperability when passing parameters. XML schemas give us type
checking. It's also helpful for exception handling.

Sure we could use comma-delimited text for interoperability, but we'd be tied to
positional logic, counting commas and inventing something if we wanted to do
type checking and message validation.

There's no magic required for messaging with binary formats. The industry has
been there and done that. X.12 and EDIFACT are EDI standards that have been in
play for years. But those are well-defined message sets.

One more perspective:

"SOAP Version 1.2 Usage Scenarios"
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xmlp-scenarios-20020626/


======== Ken North ===========
www.WebServicesSummit.com
www.SQLSummit.com
www.GridSummit.com

• References:
  • RE: Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by Date: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Previous by thread: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by thread: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread