[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Although the 'let's make XML simpler because
of this application' threads replicate the
debates of the working groups accurately.
It comes down to this: until one has worked
in the markup field with different applications
for some time, it is not likely one will see
the working reasons for the features one is
not using to date. Every feature in XML
was debated hotly because of the "minimal
options; ideally zero" requirement.
If SOAP did not work because of the features
it does not use, that would be a different
issue. It does work. What is the problem?
So far, documentation of the SOAP practice
does not seem to satisfy some urge
to see that practice reflected in the XML
specification itself. Why? No work is
being held up because of it.
As to being unfair to the people who did
the work, that is so, but those people
have big shoulders and bigger feet. There
is probably a bit of toe envy involved. :-)
len
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@rbii.com]
You know, it'd be great if people wouldn't make claims about what XML was
supposed to have been, and about what happened during the process of defining
XML.
Most of the claims are at best historically inaccurate, and more often than
not, unfair to the people that actually did the work.
|
