Lists Home |
Date Index |
Wunderbar! Two nicely contrary points of view that somehow converge.
"That's the whole point though. I don't see interoperability coming only from
common syntax, nor from a single infoset. Application/software level
interoperability can only happen through standardization within a given
application domain.... it's outside the scope of the efforts of the W3C."
"Users of XML tools building documents they
expect to send via SOAP, or building SOAP envelopes for their XML
documents/data "by hand" might need tools that enforce the SOAP subset so
that some downstream SOAP processor doesn't reject them."
I don't see interoperability coming from any one source either.
Yet I see improvements or alternatives that can make improvements
overall. Tools to help the SOAP builder, a reduction in
the exposure to some side effects of entities, a better layering
where parsing and validation are cleanly separated, then the
potential to put all "datatyping/schematizing" languages on an
equal footing vis a vis well-formed instances would all be
improvements we could share.
"I think XML-SW would be a Good Thing for almost everyone including the Web services
people, although it might cause a bit of discomfort to align with it."
and Gavin concludes:
"The standardization efforts within a given domain might well normatively
define themselves in terms of the syntax and infoset defined elsewhere..."
I agree. If everyone believes they can all gain even with some
pain, and that pain is reasonably equally shared, that is a
basis for a consensus on a normative subset of XML.
XML-SW is as close as any proposal I've seen put forward that
gets the most benefits for the best sharing of the pain of the
implementation. I would think it in the best interests of the
W3C and the XML community to start there.