[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: SML: Second Try

• To: 'Gavin Thomas Nicol' <gtn@r...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: SML: Second Try
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:16:43 -0600

Although the 'let's make XML simpler because 
of this application' threads replicate the 
debates of the working groups accurately.

It comes down to this:  until one has worked 
in the markup field with different applications 
for some time, it is not likely one will see 
the working reasons for the features one is 
not using to date.  Every feature in XML 
was debated hotly because of the "minimal 
options; ideally zero" requirement. 

If SOAP did not work because of the features 
it does not use, that would be a different 
issue.  It does work.  What is the problem?
So far, documentation of the SOAP practice 
does not seem to satisfy some urge
to see that practice reflected in the XML 
specification itself.  Why?  No work is 
being held up because of it.

As to being unfair to the people who did 
the work, that is so, but those people 
have big shoulders and bigger feet. There 
is probably a bit of toe envy involved. :-)

len

From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...]

You know, it'd be great if people wouldn't make claims about what XML was 
supposed to have been, and about what happened during the process of defining 
XML. 

Most of the claims are at best historically inaccurate, and more often than 
not, unfair to the people that actually did the work.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SML: Second Try
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: convert my relational database to XML
• Next by Date: Re: SML: Second Try
• Previous by thread: RE: SML: Second Try
• Next by thread: Re: SML: Second Try
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread