OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: RE: RE: [xml-dev] How to spell "No PSVI" in XSLT 2.0 ?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Ask them.  If you believe the REST contingent, 
SOAP has flaws.  However, I suspect that the lack 
of strong types and the possibilities of open 
ended DTD designs with entities made them nervous.
SOAP has a very narrow application scope.  Too 
many want too much control where a little experimentation 
is sufficient.

I often see the other end of this where 
systems are exchanging data loosely and discover 
XML is  overkill syntactically, but that 
the ability to specify a contract to which 
documents/messages will be built that is machine-verifiable 
has way more value than say, namespaces.

As is being said, people with definite implementations 
have definite opinions.  I'm seeing application languages 
being proposed that will have narrow scopes of application. 
That's fine as long as the rant and hype match the scope. 
Otherwise, its just more rant and hype and the locals still do 
what they must on time and under budget.  There is the 
tendency when *building buzz* (a stupid tactic but accepted 
as gospel), to try to enumerate all the possible applications 
of a given artifact.  That pulls in a lot keyword-match 
driven mentalities who arrive with definite requirements 
that can't be met by the design.  Then the NonFun starts. 
That is why so many efforts are in the bog.  The originators 
see that the product will be too complicated for them, 
and the come-latelies are left maneuvering politically 
to get control to ensure their implementations are  
included.  Pretty soon, the list is one or two people 
hollering into the 'net to no one.

DTDs:  use them where needed.  Be smart about that. 
Where and when aren't always obvious going into the 
project.  Preserve options.

But toss them out?  Heck, namespaces are more trouble 
than they are worth for some applications but those 
are almost a divine dispensation in some eyes.  

I'm saying, if there is no clear reason, do nothing. 
That's usually best.   XML 2.0 will be a botch if it 
is too complicated or too simpleminded, but DTDs 
have proven their value.


*building buzz*: 1. a tactic used to recruit people 
to do work for free that the builders can't do for 
money.  2.  a tactic used to recruit people with 
money to pay people to do work that they won't 
do for free.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]

5/17/2002 10:20:56 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> wrote:

>XML has caught the hem of its skirt on a nail in the 
>door frame.
>Take out DTDs and comma-delimited ASCII is more attractive
>than ever.

<rising to the bait :~) />

OK, so why did the SOAP folks not find comma-delimited ASCII
suitable for their needs?  And why did they determine that
DTDs cause more trouble than they are worth?


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS