[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com (Uche Ogbuji) writes:
>> 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.
Oh good. The SML permathread returns. While I have no fondness for Web
Services, there is plenty to ponder on the SML side that is perhaps more
exciting than Uche (or Elliotte) gives credit.
Rick Jelliffe had an interesting post to www-tag on this recently:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0194.html
Despite the Simeon/Wadler reference, Rick has a point that "it is the
current definition of well-formed that is the interoperability
'disaster'", and that developers would likely prefer "headless".
(In my own programming, I'm working on a set of parser tools that does
not process DOCTYPE declarations - they get passed to the application,
in the unlikely event that the application cares, but I don't. I don't
call them XML - it's "markup", thanks - but it's a trend I'd like to
encourage.)
I have an old presentation on the subject at:
http://simonstl.com/articles/interop/
Rick, of course, was an early critic of efforts to subset XML:
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/12/sml/goldilocks.html
Whether the cost of straightening out some of XML 1.0's more twisted
moments is worth the cost is a different issue, but it's probably wise
to at least acknowledge there are some unpleasant bits worth avoiding.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
