Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: Mike Champion [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> 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?
>"Unicode with angle brackets" demonstrably works. That doesn't mean that
>the XML 1.0 spec, the whole 1.0 spec, and nothing but the XML 1.0 spec
SOAP works. What about XML 1.0 keeps SOAP from working?
XML binaries are working. What about XML 1.0 prevents that?
o No design for a binary XML has emerged that works efficiently
for all applications. Solution: each application will create
a binary suitable to its needs.
o No subset has emerged that meets the needs of all applications.
No requirement for a profile has been stated that has tangible
benefits over letting the varying requirements of the different
applications profile the specification independently. In short,
what is the utility of the document (what a profile is)?
o Convenience is not quantifiable and because of the siphon
effect, opinions and requests without requirements are unreliable.
Decrying "fundamentalism" is not the same as stating a requirement.
It's just more rhetoric to start the siphon hose of uninformed
agreements pushing goods from one tank into another.
Let's see the requirement. If it cannot be met
without a profile, then proceed. Otherwise do nothing.