[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Wunderbar! Two nicely contrary points of view that somehow converge.
Gavin Nicol:
"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."
Mike Champion:
"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.
Mike concludes:
"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.
len
|
