|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: interoperability (was Re: Obfuscating XML with namespaces)
Joshua Allen writes: > > XML itself is like IP -- it's a good foundation, but it's too raw to > > give us interoperability. We need to build the equivalents of TCP, > > I disagree; I've used XML to build connections between MVS, UNIX, > and NT systems that have survived system and software upgrades with > little interruption. Congratulations -- during the 80's, similarly talented coders used to write quite good word processors and spreadsheets in assembler code as well. Older coders wax nostalgic from time to time, but I don't see any of them uninstalling their widget libraries. Of course you can make a data-interchange system work now -- you don't even need XML to do that -- but making it work and then keeping it working can be expensive, especially once the XML specialist moves on or gets hit by the proverbial bus. [snip: my complaint about SOAP's layering violations] > Could you elaborate? People find it easy to think about SOAP in > terms of RPC and HTTP, but the spec is very agnostic about these > things. I have usually heard people complain that SOAP doesn't > attempt enough. Maybe there needs to be some better augmenting > documentation? Data representation is one application domain, and RPC is another. While RPC needs a data representation format, data representation does not necessarily (usually?) need RPC. Putting both in the same spec introduces unnecessary complexities and interdependencies. All the best, David -- David Megginson david@m... http://www.megginson.com/
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||






