RE: [soapbuilders] multiple immediate children in doc/literal?
- Robert van Engelen wrote:
> I disagree with Rich' opinion that comp. sci. theorists are to blameI have to disagree with you both; you're both right!
> (no offense, Rich ;-) ). I suspect that too many parties attempt to be
> stakeholders in SOAP 1.2 to tweak it to be as widely applicable as
> possible in order to claim IP rights for anything that uses XML over
> HTTP/SMTP/TCP (I am not even sure anymore whether SOAP 1.2. requires
> XML at all which used to be main advantage that SOAP had over other
> protocols by utilizing XML as the lingua franca for RPC).
Phalanx Systems, LLC
> It is certainly ironic that the bloat has crept into protocols suchHey, did you see that UDDI just turned spec development over to OASIS?
> as UDDI 3.0 and SOAP 1.2, while the original goal of these protocols
> was "lightweight" RPC and/or message exchange with lookup/discovery.