Lists Home |
Date 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
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, email@example.com, UTF-7: +Z5de+pBU-