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

RE: interoperability (was Re: Obfuscating XML with namespaces)

• From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@m...>
• To: 'David Megginson' <david@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:28:01 -0700

> 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.  Using XML is *way* easier than the way it was before, and
that's perhaps the most important advance.  You can code against XML in any
language and from any platform; it's even easy to "get by" with XML with a
home-made parser.  In fact, you don't even need a classical programming
language to use XML.  You can use 'grep' and 'tr' with some shell script to
produce valid XML that can do useful things.  Sure, you have to add extra
layers on top of XML to do things, but XML adds a very important layer we
didn't have before, and it is good.

> low-level XML, and forces people into contortions like writing XSLT
> stylesheets for simple data exchange.  

But before, we didn't even have XSLT.  

> RDF has way too many ugly parts, but there are some specs being built
> on top of it (RSS 1.0, PRISM, XMLNews-Meta, the now-moribund INDECS,
> and a few others that have been mentioned on XMLHack), so it's a tiny
> spark.  We can either try to make RDF work, or throw it away and

Maybe.  There is certainly virtue in adding more atop XML.  There is also
virtue in doing things in baby steps, and taking in the feedback when
real-world implementors build solutions that are widely-deployed.

> SOAP and XMI are other candidates for a data layer, but while SOAP
> makes good use of Namespaces, it mixes up procedural RPC too much with
> data representation (read: BIG LAYERING VIOLATION, as if HTTP and HTML

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?

Thanks,

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: interoperability (was Re: Obfuscating XML with namespaces)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: interoperability (was Re: Obfuscating XML with namespaces)
• Next by Date: Re: XML database
• Previous by thread: RE: interoperability (was Re: Obfuscating XML with namespaces)
• Next by thread: RE: interoperability (was Re: Obfuscating XML with namespaces)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread