Lists Home |
Date 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
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.
From: Mike Champion [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
5/17/2002 10:20:56 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com> wrote:
>XML has caught the hem of its skirt on a nail in the
>Take out DTDs and comma-delimited ASCII is more attractive
<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?