[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
10/9/2002 5:05:48 AM, Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@propylon.com> wrote:
>Its ironic. A couple of years ago I was part of an attempt to specify this
>interoperable
>core and got shot down for it. Along comes Web Services, SOAP etc, they subset
>XML and nobody even whimpers!
Yup, that is beautifully ironic. SOAP uses "Common XML Core" for all practical
purposes (well, maybe not the bit about declaring all namespaces on top, because
the payload is logically separate from the envelope ... and it doesn't say
anything about comments). I'm not sure, since I didn't follow SOAP carefully
in the early days, but the "SML" debates three years ago may have given the SOAP
people a certain amount of conviction that THEY could get away with it. I
know Don Box grabbed me at an XML conference in early 2000 and dragged me
into an XML Protocols BOF, apparently in case the horrors of subsetting
came up and they needed to divert some fire in my direction <grin>.
But it didn't ... I'm sure that practical experience quickly showed the
SOAP people that anything that gets defined in a DTD is an interoperability
sink once a message leaves its source.
Also, there *is* a fair amount of whimpering because SOAP isn't a good
transport for arbitrary XML. The subject comes up on the xmlp mailing list
every so often (although PIs are the only thing that anyone can make a
credible case for putting back, not DTD stuff). The SOAP old-timers
step in and explain the problems with PIs in *their* universe each time.
So cheer up, Sean. You know what they say about prophets being honored :-)
|
