W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2000

RE: ebXML Abandons SOAP

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:23:56 -0400
Message-Id: <200010022120.RAA14247@hesketh.net>
To: James Snell <jmsnell@intesolv.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
At 01:54 PM 10/2/00 -0700, James Snell wrote:
>Well... before we get too far along on this discussion, let's back up and
>identify exactly WHY XML is currently NOT a good envelope for XML.  

I'm not actually concerned about why "XML is currently NOT a good envelope
for XML."

I'm not sure the 'envelope' approach actually makes sense any more, except
for the sake of using legacy protocols - HTTP, SMTP, etc.

While I understand the cost benefits of using those protocols, I have
serious doubts about the wisdom of extending them in ways that will keep
their limitations around for decades to come, and inflict those limitations
on new work.

There are some (Keith Moore, for instance) who see the work using HTTP as a
substrate protocol as a threat to the integrity of HTTP.  While I don't
entirely agree, I do see HTTP as imposing potentially serious limitations
on the structure and potential of future protocols.  

For something small like XML-RPC, I don't think this matters very much, but
it feels like a serious risk for larger and more complex protocols.

HTTP 1.1 uses keep-alive to create a kind of envelope for efficiency
reasons, but I suspect we need something a little more flexible over the
long term if we want to support large-scale flexible information transfers.


Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
Received on Monday, 2 October 2000 17:20:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT