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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

> As an old-time SGML/XML geek thrust by the Day Job into the Web services 
> world, I'm somewhat ambivalent on the first, but more or less convinced 
> that the critique from the "XML community" is misguided.

No.  You're misguided.  No, yet.  You're just dead wrong.

> On the "XML community" critique, the way I see it is that the Web services 
> people are pushing the XML envelope in ways it was not pushed before, and 
> have found it wanting: Things like entity references play hell with 
> efficient buffer management in high-performance parsers;

Silly rabbit, XML is for folks who want XML, not for folks who want "efficient 
buffer management in high-performance parsers".  If everyone who found XML 
lackign in some arcane area decided to mutate XML, where would we be?  By your 
lights, the Water/ConciseXML folks are doing nothing wrong whatsoever.  I 
won't dwell on the fact that when the "efficient buffered parser" claim came 
up here a little while back, the claimants were not able to make a convincing 

No one told the WS folks they *had* to use XML.  They chose XML, and they have 
concommitantly also chosen to " violate the fundamental design of XML".  It's 
that simple.

> XML 1.x is not 
> composable as specified, which makes the full spec unusable for a header- 
> extension model such as SOAP offers, and so on. (See the response by the 
> XMLP WG to this issue on www-tag a month ago for details).

No.  I'm not interested in seeing what the XMLP WG says in some formal round 
of mumbo-jumbo.  If you want to put forth such a vacuous accusations as "XML 
1.x is not composable as specified", please justify it here in language that 
proves it is not just a case of character assassination by quiddity.

> It's not at all 
> clear what the best way forward is -- forking, profiling, deprecating for 
> XML 2.x

The best way forward for *WS* appears to be: "use something other than XML".  
Why should XML be forked, deprecated and profiled to spite those of us who use 
it just fine as it is now?  The W3C has seen rebellions over WXS and now 
XPath/XSLT 2.0. If they make any moves along the lines you outline above, they 
will face a certain rebellion against XML itself.

> -- but I personally have little patience with the argument that the 
> "fundamental design of XML" has been compromised.

Well, I have no patience with your (IMO) unexamined counter-claim.

> In fact, the fact that 
> the SOAP community independently came up with essentially the same profile 
> of XML that the SML-DEV folks did a few years ago ("Common XML Core") makes 
> me even more convinced that the "fault" lies more on the XML side than the 
> WS side.

And the weight you give to the overwhelming numbers of people who have *not* 
found they need such a "profile"?  It seems that you choose to give this group 
negligible weight.

All is fair.  We happily return the favor.

Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
The open office file format  - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/librar
Python Generators + DOM - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/01/08/py-xml.html
4Suite Repository Features - https://www6.software.ibm.com/reg/devworks/dw-x4su
XML class warfare - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6965


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

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