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

Re: [i48]: encoding style { was [i47]: XML Protocol WG Issues list d iscussion }

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:45:18 -0400
To: rayw@netscape.com (Ray Whitmer)
Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFB57B7D06.3B1DE09E-ON85256A2A.006D32DD@lotus.com>
Ray Whitmer asks (regarding my statement that proliferation of encoding 
styles could limit interop):

>> 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.

The difference, I think, is that lots of middleware is being written to 
understand particular encoding styles, such as the one in SOAP chapter 5. 
For example, there are Java ser-/deser-ializers that can take anything in 
that encoding and make it available to you automatically in Java.  They 
work regardless of whether you are asking for stock quotes, the weather, 
credit-card numbers, etc.   They break when you change encodings.

By contrast, most of the proliferation of XML vocabularies is at the 
application-specific level.  The standards that middleware depends on 
include XML itself, DTDs/schemas, etc.  Proliferation of alternatives to 
XML itself, DTDs, etc. would indeed limit interop.  Yes, we occasionally 
need better schema languages, and yes we will occasionally need to see 
innovations in XMLP encodings, but there is a cost.  Anyway, that's how I 
see the comparison.  Thanks much.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 19:48:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:00 GMT