[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"W. E. Perry" wrote:
>
> Paul Prescod wrote:
>
> > "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> > > I'd love to see an "XMLchucker" protocol that just opens a port, sends
> > > the info, and maybe replies with a checksum or an error. No more.
> >
> > It'll take about ten minutes to write the RFC for that. But your
> > intermediaries will have no idea what is going on and won't be able to help
> > you.
>
> Unless the nodes which act upon your marked-up message are implementations of
> particular processing expertise: capable, that is, of doing useful things
> with your message which you cannot do yourself and may well not even
> understand in much detail what is to be done.
I agree with everything you write. It is precisely because we want
intermediaries that can deal with tasks like routing and caching that we
standardized what it means to be routed and cached, in the protocol,
rather than reinvent it in a thousand competing XML vocabularies.
Paul Prescod
|
