xml-dev - RE: interoperability (was Re: Obfuscating XML with namespaces)

[David Megginson <david@megginson.com>]

Joshua Allen writes:

 > > XML itself is like IP -- it's a good foundation, but it's too raw to
 > > give us interoperability.  We need to build the equivalents of TCP,
 > 
 > I disagree; I've used XML to build connections between MVS, UNIX,
 > and NT systems that have survived system and software upgrades with
 > little interruption.

Congratulations -- during the 80's, similarly talented coders used to
write quite good word processors and spreadsheets in assembler code as
well.  Older coders wax nostalgic from time to time, but I don't see
any of them uninstalling their widget libraries.

Of course you can make a data-interchange system work now -- you don't
even need XML to do that -- but making it work and then keeping it
working can be expensive, especially once the XML specialist moves on
or gets hit by the proverbial bus.

[snip: my complaint about SOAP's layering violations]

 > Could you elaborate?  People find it easy to think about SOAP in
 > terms of RPC and HTTP, but the spec is very agnostic about these
 > things.  I have usually heard people complain that SOAP doesn't
 > attempt enough.  Maybe there needs to be some better augmenting
 > documentation?

Data representation is one application domain, and RPC is another.
While RPC needs a data representation format, data representation does
not necessarily (usually?) need RPC.  Putting both in the same spec
introduces unnecessary complexities and interdependencies.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/