5229Re: [decentralization] Re: xml protocols and transport bindings
- Feb 3, 2002Bram Cohen wrote:
>True. But XML doesn't claim to be a protocol. What you gain by using XML
> I'm afraid that that's the norm. I don't see what it buys you - two
> unrelated protocols based on XML are no more compatible than two unrelated
> protocols based on binary.
is components that know how to work with it, parsers, validators,
transformation engines, etc. The same would be true of SOAP if it tried
to do one and only one thing well. But it tries to handle everything
from a simple syntactic level right up to type and structure
representation and then also be a true RPC protocol.
>..That's one of the few things that SOAP adds to XML and the Net, a
> encoding - XML is, face it, a crappy encoding scheme. Just *what* are you
> supposed to do with tags you don't recognize? Strip them out? Ignore
> everything in the middle?
concept of mustUnderstand. As I've said, SOAP isn't bad for the logical
equivalent of headers. It's nice that it allows them to be structured
and has that mustUnderstand and actor stuff.
> ... It doesn't even parse all that fast, producesYou could say the same about HTTP, SMTP, MIME or FTP. I wouldn't
> bloated encodings, and doesn't even do good binary encoding. And for
> what? A little human-editability? In a format spoken between computer
> programs? Who cares?
disregard the importance of human readability for popularity. There is
no good reason to put binary data in XML when it is so easy to use MIME.
> type checking conventions - supposedly DTDs sort of, kind of can do this,Or schemas.
> but it seems everyone just writes regular expressions.
I don't know of people writing regular expressions. Easier to
hand-validate the output of the parser than use regexps!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>