[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 17:56:23 -0700, Uche Ogbuji
> <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Which is the problem. SOAP is not XML, and should stop saying it is so.
>
> SOAP is a *customer* of XML,
This means nothing to me. Nothing.
> > Ans anyway, if I want that, I'd rather just stuff an XML EPE into a
> > extension HTTP header.
>
> Recall that SOAP (1.2 anyway) is protocol-neutral.
So? I can stuff the EPE into an SMTP MIME header as well. SOAP is not
protocol-neutral by magic: it has bindings for each protocol. Such bindings
can be just as easily be defined for XML-EPE-in-header-XML-content-in-payload.
> > So as far as I'm concerned, SOAP is not XML, nor is it useful to even a
> > fraction of the degree to which it is destructive.
>
> Ah, but XML is what powers SOAP.
I don't see how that is relevant. I said that SOAP is destructive. If XML is
what powers SOAP, then why would it behoove SOAP to abuse XML?
> messaging without the "assistance" of wizards. Forking won't hurt MS, IBM,
> etc. ... it will hurt the smaller, innovative folks trying to leverage the
> full power of XML and SOAP-based technologies.
Nonsense. I count myself, my company and many of my colleagues as among this
latter group. I can tell you that it is obvious to m that a taint of the sort
you are advocating will be far more harmful than an outright fork.
> > Now what could it possibly be that separates these efforts from the
> > sneaky tactics of the WS crowd? Whatever could it be?...
>
> Beats me ... (seriously, I don't know where you're going with that).
This ends this thread for me. You're not even reading. I explicitly an
unmistakably said that the separating factor is that LMNL, JITTs, etc. *make
it clear* that they are forking, and that their product is not XML. The WS
folks are far less above-board, and rather than forking want to mutate XML for
everybody. And yes, even if they say that only "SOAP" processors cripple XML,
they are still affecting everyone unless they clarify the distinction between
SOAP and XML.
Anyway, I don't have time for this. As I said, if the SOAP people wn't
honestly come out and fork XML, and yet continue to try to taint it,there are
others of us that will work to force an outright fork.
Sheesh! All this over Web Services: perhaps the set of technologies whose
hype-to-substance ratio is the most disdainful that I have ever witnessed.
Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if Web Services had ever proven themselves to
have a fraction of the usefulness of XML.
EOT.
--
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
y/x-think15/
4Suite Repository Features - https://www6.software.ibm.com/reg/devworks/dw-x4su
ite5-i/
XML class warfare - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6965
See you at XML Web Services One - http://www.xmlconference.com/santaclara/
|
