[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
dareo@microsoft.com (Dare Obasanjo) writes:
>The best practice is not to design your XML in such a boneheaded manner
>in the first place not coming up with overcomplicated rules of how to
>process it.
I think for the most part that I agree with you, but let's take a
specific recent case (http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/1010.html) and
see whether we agree on what's "boneheaded" here.
Does it make sense to design a vocabulary such that:
<item xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";>
<title>My Summer Vacation</title>
<description>On my summer vacation I went to...</description>
<link>http://127.0.0.1/cgi-bin/RESTLog.py/4</link>
<dc:date>2002-10-28T22:18:53-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
is considered equivalent (even when you're not using SOAP) to:
<s:Envelope xmlns:s="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/";>
<s:Body>
<item xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/";>
<title>My Summer Vacation</title>
<description>On my summer vacation I went to...</description>
<link>http://127.0.0.1/cgi-bin/RESTLog.py/4</link>
<dc:date>2002-10-28T22:18:53-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
</s:Body>
</s:Envelope>
We can just ignore the s:Enveloper and s:Body tags, right? Or can we?
What's over-complicated here? (The unqualified nature of the item
vocabulary raises another nice set of questions about what is
complicated or not, but that's another issue.)
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
