W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2001

Re: [i48]: encoding style { was [i47]: XML Protocol WG Issues li st discussion }

From: David Ezell <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:54:07 -0400
Message-ID: <472E220BA79DD11186340060B06B38D905BD8032@tpantmail1.ssr.hp.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:04:40 -0600 Ray Whitmer wrote [1]:
>David Ezell wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:05:44 -0500 (EST) Frank DeRose wrote [2]:
>>> ... I agree
>>> completely with the statement Noah made in today's conference call: the
>>> degree of interoperability XML protocol implementations achieve will be
>>> inversely proportional to the number of encodingStyles that sprout up. 
>>> ...
>Is this similar to the statement:
>"The degree of interoperability XML processors achieve will be inversely 
>proportional to the number of DTDs/Schemas that sprout up.
>I disagree with both. 

While the two statements might be similar, I believe the first is correct
and the second is incorrect.   

The first statement is true (I believe) because the kinds of encoding
styles being discussed would *require* specific software in order to
interpret the "wire format" (I'm including dialects of XML here, like
SOAP encoding).

The second statement is false (again I believe):  it ignores the fact 
that powerful middleware is under construction which will deduce objects 
from types declared in schemas [2].  This software will "sit on top of"
XMLP.  Further, a processor will be able to interpret objects which
are subtypes of objects that it already knows about through a system
of generic and application specific schema references, providing a sort
of web-based polymorphism between applications.  In this respect, Schemas
may help us move toward that difficult "without a priori knowledge" goal.
(N.B. Ray I realize I'm preaching to the choir somewhat!)

>I think it makes sense to supply the SOAP encoding, but not to enshrine 
>it in any way.  If it is to become part of the core XML Protocol proper, 
>the spec must be insulated from it properly. 

I agree with this statement, with the reservation that "not to enshrine"
doesn't mean not to take some effort to guarantee access to the 
specification (such as providing it a permanent URL somewhere).  I'm
not clear if the "W3C Note" status gives that kind of guarantee.   But
I really agree that it should be segregated.

Kind regards,
David Ezell

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Apr/0071.html
[2] I don't have any special knowledge here:  it's my evangelical side
    coming out.
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 09:54:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC