Lists Home |
Date Index |
email@example.com (Miles Sabin) writes:
>But I don't think it has any bearing on the viability of pushing XML
>down the stack in the way Kurt's report seemed to be suggesting
>(whether or not that was what Don _meant_ to say). There's too much
>exisiting infrastructure for that to be viable outside of relatively
>Like I said: look at IPv6, or look at multicast.
For the public Internet, I completely agree. I'm more concerned about
the impact of these issues on "relatively closed environments."
For a brief period of time, we've had a strangely unified networking
universe, where large chunks of the closed environments are running on
the same network infrastructure as the open environments. It's not
universal, of course - there are still lots of non-IP environments out
there - but it's certainly been a change.
If, as I suspect, this kind of routing starts out on top of an HTTP (or
even) IP foundation which can later be shifted to whatever seems
convenient, we may find that situation changing. I have to admit that
I marveled at how transparent the switchover from NetBEUI/whatever to
TCP/IP felt over successive versions of Windows.
Might be better for some people, might be worse for others.
(Personally, I've never been too happy with how closed-environment
assumptions have afflicted a lot of seemingly open-environment
specifications, including XML, so I'd be inclined to say it was for the
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:18.104.22.168.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether