[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Joseph,
> > Well this implies that XML needs it's own protocol, and I
> > would probably agree with that. I don't believe that SOAP
> > really embraces all that can be done with XML, even XML ver 1.0.
>
> I'm a bit puzzled by your characterization of SOAP here - perhaps you
> might be thinking that it was intended for much more than it actually
> is, which is a message enveloping protocol. Why would SOAP need to
> "embrace all that can be done with XML"? What is not included in SOAP
> that should be?
Sorry, I'm just not a SOAP fan. Call it a vi versus emacs thing, I
just can't be converted no matter how many religious zealots come
knocking on my door.
> What aspect(s) of the above example do you believe should be done by
> SOAP, but are not?
I'm not a SOAP user so who am I to say.
At this point, I can't be converted into using SOAP because it
is peer-to-peer and not multi-peer to multi-peer.
Some people say that it is slow and chunky and that to me seems
to indicate low fun factor.
But obviously it is the "mainstream" and here we are boutique
and who cares if never the twain shall meet. We're all having
fun...
Best Regards
David
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
