[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wednesday 19 December 2001 12:15 pm, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > That wasn't it's design point. I think XML has been forced
> > into situations that it wasn't designed for, and for which it is less
> > than
>
> ideal.
>
> Ahh, but that's true of most technologies that really take off. Think of
> HTTP. Or computers, for that matter. Or telephones.
I think HTTP is a good analogy, I do not think computers or telephones are as
their essential purpose has remained unchanged.
I think a better example would be the fellow that invented a way to detect
whether a computer was on the other end of the line for purposes of
*answering* a phone (redirect to FAX/MODEM/person). This was abused and
retartgetted into the wonderful mass-calling device all telemarketers use
today...
That said, I think the *abuse* of technologies always exposes pent up demand
for *something else*, and in general, *something else* appears to fill the
void better than the kludges. The WWW is a pretty good example of both...
the WWW was designed to allow physicists and others to exchange information.
It was abused to become a much more open system, but then Mosaic came along,
and that was the "different" tool that caused the mass movement to the WWW.
It really scratched the itch everyone had.
I think SOAP/XML-RPC/.Net etc all point to an unfulfilled need in the market
more than anything else. People want to leverage pervasive networking, and
want more flexible/open RPC mechanisms than CORBA et al. provide. That is
very different from needing HTTP and XML.
|
