[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
mc@xegesis.org (Mike Champion) writes:
>This is fine in a pure, designed for all-one-protocol environment, but
>creates all sorts of problems when bridging conceptually different
>protocols. Putting information in the fuzzy intermediate XML zone
>(such as SOAP headers) allows those ubiquitous XML processors to look
>deep inside the message (with XPath, SAX, DOM, regexp, whatever) to
>make routing/filtering decisions that would be impractical before XML
>came along.
So I guess it's fair to say that XML's insistence on a singly-rooted
tree has led to some very strange architectural decisions by people who
want to slap protocols into single XML documents. I really don't like
it when my letters arrive glued to the envelope - never even liked those
airmail things.
BEEP did a much nicer job with this stuff, using XML for both headers
and (sometimes) content, but keeping them in separate documents. They
demonstrated that XML can useful for protocols work but that you don't
need to confuse XML documents with messages.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
