[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion wrote:
> How would what Dare, Robin, Don Box et al, or anyone else suggest take
> away [Walter's] working integrations?
I think there may be another useful distinction between
camps in the XML world besides the well-known "document"
vs. "data" one. I think Walter, Simon, and others
belong to a "publishing" group that stands in contrast to
the "messaging" group.
In a publishing model, as we observe on the Web,
there is little opportunity for the creator of a document
to negotiate with its recipient. As a result, fewer,
more fundamental, more syntactic agreements are required
to achieve interoperability.
In a messaging model, the creator and receiver of a
document have the opportunity to negotiate prior
agreements such as schemata, use of binary serializations,
particular APIs, etc. in order to produce more efficient
communication.
Systems that rely on accessing "publish"-style data,
like Walter's and Google, are hopelessly lost when faced
with "message"-style data, since they cannot be parties
to all the necessary agreements. That is how currently
working integrations can be harmed by the proposed
suggestions, unless they are used in a true messaging
context internal to a system and never leaked to the
outside world, or even the remainder of the enterprise.
--
Kian-Tat Lim, ktl@ktlim.com, UTF-7: +Z5de+pBU-
|
