Lists Home |
Date Index |
1/18/2002 2:00:11 PM, "Derek Denny-Brown" <email@example.com>
>Ahh... but is .Net services implemented an XML subset, which did not
>properly detect invalid xml characters, etc... Microsoft would get
>lambasted for attempting to 'corrupt' XML. Simplified/optimized
>solutions are fine in a closed world environment, but suffer serious
>long-term interop issues in an open (Internet) environment.
First, it's Microsoft's SUPERSETS that irritate people.
Second, SOAP 1.x uses an XML subset (no DTDs or PIs allowed).
Presumably .Net services uses the same subset?
As far as conformance to specs is concerned, I think you're preaching
to the choir on this list! Perhaps we're talking past one another
about what "XML" means. I've never heard anyone seriously argue that
it's OK to say that some tool supports "XML 1.0" and then be liberal
on accepting characters or strings that violate the well-formedness
The point about the simplicity of XML that usually gets made here is
more that "XML" is sometimes taken to mean the whole corpus of W3C
specs relating to XML, including namespaces, DOM, W3C schemas, xslt,
xpath, and perhaps xquery, rdf. I suspect that Jonathan Borden is
suggesting that, for example, defining what a namespace name "means"
with a RDDL file makes more practical sense today than using some RDF
ontology or a big Topic Map. "Use what is really needed and what is
well tested" is good advice to the end user, even though tool
implementers can't do likewise and claim full compliance with the
various XML Recommendations, some parts of which really should come
with the warning "Here Be Dragons.
One implication for tool and platform vendors might be that XML is
not "misleadingly simple," it *IS* simple if you stay away from the
bleeding edge. What many people really fear vis a vis Microsoft and
XML is something like "don't worry you're pretty little heads about
all that complexity, just use our GUI and wizards ... all will be
fine ... trust us, trust us." So sorry, but trusting y'all up there
in Redmond to ensure interoperability has not been a winning
proposition in the past. Sticking with the simple subset of XML
technology that can be understood by ordinary mortals and can be
proven to interoperate with other Web Services tools is simple
prudence, not paranoia about evil.