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

Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services

• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 20:49:36 -0500
• In-reply-to: <E18fPy5-0005nz-00@b...>
• References: <E18fPy5-0005nz-00@b...>
• User-agent: Opera7.0/Win32 M2 build 2637

On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 12:39:53 -0700, Uche Ogbuji 
<uche.ogbuji@f...> wrote:


> But yes, rejecting XML documents that use DTD is a violation of XML's 
> fundamental design.  Or do you claim that DTDs are not a part of XML's 
> fundamental design?

 In the current situation compliant XML tools can validate a SOAP message 
against the relevant schemata, but a SOAP-compliant processor will reject 
it if it has a DTD (external declaration or internal subset), a PI, etc. 
The issue on the table, as I understand it, is whether the "XML" world 
(broadly defined) is better off with the status quo or in a world where 
some "profile" is established whereby "XML" tools can be either optimized 
for the profile, or put into "profile mode" where they would flag as errors 
the use of constructs not in the profile.

I don't see this as anyone wanting to "remold XML in their own image". 
[Let's be clear -- I'm talking about the Web services people, not 
necessarily the PSVI folks, the XQuery folks, etc. .... just because we're 
all evil doesn't mean we're an axis :-) ] The idea is to agree on what is 
*truly* fundamental so as to leverage all the stuff that Dare and Tim talk 
about ...

 * Model Based APIs for in memory representation * Stream based APIs for 
fast processing * Grammer languages for specifying valid content - CHECK 
[DTD, W3C XML Schema]
 * Query languages
 * Ability to perform regexes against the structure of the content * 
Ability to create fairly human readable serialization * Built-in Unicode 
support
 * [maybe] rigorous error handling
 * etc.

... without getting tangled up in the bits that PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE HAS 
SHOWN to have different costs-benefits in the data-oriented and document- 
oriented worlds (entity references beyond the built-in ones being the usual 
example).

<religious-analogy-beaten-into-the-ground> IMHO, It's time for 
ecumenicalism, not fundamentalism ... time to welcome innovators into the 
mainstream rather than driving them out as heretics ... time to accept the 
fact that XML is continually evolving from what survives in the real world, 
not invented by an omniscient Creator. </religious-analogy-beaten-into-the- 
ground>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
• Next by Date: RE: Usefulness of well-formedness was RE: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
• Previous by thread: Re: poisoned markup
• Next by thread: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread