|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
distobj@a... (Mark Baker) writes: >We need less protocols, not more, because we need more >interoperability, not less. Hmm... that feels to me a lot like the trade-offs in XML between obsessively standardizing for interoperability and allowing people to customize systems to meet their own needs. I can find some sympathy for standardization, and think Jon Bosak's made some nice points with UBL (at XML 2002, and also at [1]) that a few standardized vocabularies are good to have, but I find arguments that we need fewer vocabularies (which I've heard from parties other than Jon) pretty unconvincing. I have a hard time believing that we need fewer protocols for similar reasons. HTTP is great for what it does, but I'm not very happy with partisans who insist that we should build everything on HTTP for greater interop, whether RESTish or SOAPish. That notion has some real problems, as described in [2], though www-tag discussion [3] seemed like a massive effort to avoid acknowledging them. BEEP seems like the right middle ground to me. It lets developers use a shared framework for exchanging secure messages, but leaves the nature of the messages open. That feels like a good fit with XML generally. [1] - http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,864778,00.asp [2] - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3205.txt [3] - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Apr/0033.html -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








