Paul, it s wonderful! Great argument, lots of convincing detail. Suggestion for improvement: If you could put something really short illustrating theMessage 1 of 3 , Apr 18, 2002View SourcePaul, it's wonderful!
Great argument, lots of convincing detail.
Suggestion for improvement:
If you could put something really short illustrating the difference
right after this paragraph, the attention-deficit reader (vast
majority) would not need to wade through so much before getting the
"This article will demonstrate that the choice to use SOAP was
a poor one. The much simpler HTTP URI technique was easier to
use and more powerful at the same time. I will recast the new
Google API back into a URI and HTTP-based API and demonstrate
the virtues of the simpler HTTP strategy."
<Put the main contrast here>
Hi Paul Great article :-) ... Have you considered RSS 1.0  for this rather than / in addition to GoogleML ? The things that can t be done with RSS 1.0Message 1 of 3 , Apr 24, 2002View SourceHi Paul
Great article :-)
On Thu 18-Apr-2002 at 02:29:02AM -0700, Paul Prescod wrote:
> I hereby christen the purified language GoogleML. I've written an XSLT
> stylesheet that I call "pureGoogle.xsl" which translates GoogleSOAP
> into GoogleML. The resulting documents are much smaller, simpler and
> easier to read.
Have you considered RSS 1.0  for this rather than / in addition to
'GoogleML'? The things that can't be done with RSS 1.0 could be added
to RSS with a Google RSS module.
The advantage of not inventing a new language is that there are lots of
tools out there for processing RSS and it's perhaps the widest used XML
variety after XHTML and as result developers who are familiar with RSS
might 'get it' (advantages of REST) quicker?
Using RSS as a format for returning search engine results has been
suggested before and was mentioned in an article on xml.com almost two
years ago .
Chris Croome <chris@...>
web design http://www.webarchitects.co.uk/
web content management http://mkdoc.com/
everything else http://chris.croome.net/