[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:57:26 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len)
<clbullar@ingr.com> wrote:
>
> SOAP works. What about XML 1.0 keeps SOAP from working?
> XML binaries are working. What about XML 1.0 prevents that?
Nothing! Web services don't need anything different from XML, they just
took what they needed. XML binary users don't care that what they're doing
is anathema to some XML geeks. IMHO, XML needs to be concerned about these
things for its own sake, not the sake of diverse communities of users.
The question is whether "XML" will mean anything as a brand/label after
another 5 years of this success. It might become about as meaningful as
"LISP" or "SQL" (without qualifiers) -- a generic term describing a general
approach, but not anything that interoperates out of the box. The way
forward that I suggest is continuous refactoring to keep the Core "core"
and the de-facto optional parts separated. I don't want the data-heads to
drive static typing into the core to the detriment of the docheads, but
neither do I want the dochead stuff such as entities to be inflicted on the
data-heads now that the costs are becoming apparent. The SOAP people
aren't harmed by simply ignoring DTDs, but XML is harmed if there is no
formal way to distinguish "XML as practiced by SOAP" from "XML as practiced
by Docbook".
|
