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

RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema

• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>
• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 03:14:50 -0500

> `The question is,' said UserAgent, `which is to be master -- 
> that's all.' "
> 
> That is why web services are "discoverable".    If you can find its 
> schema, you can know if it is likely to fall *before* you do business 
> with it.  You can't tell it to uncross its legs; you can move and 
> avoid the yolk.

Yes, at the end of the day, it boils down to "intelligibility" and
hence trust (you wouldn't send your taxes to a babbling idiot, even
though we do send patents to such an organization). 

You *can* build  a secure distributed application from trusted components,
but the element of trust is crucial. Even in pure capability systems, 
there have to be trusted components that create the capabilities.

• References:
  • RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Next by Date: Re: A bit of pedantry (was Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XMLHackArticle. . .)
• Previous by thread: RE: Masters (was RE: Personal reply)
• Next by thread: Re: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread