RE: Sun and independent developers

> Part of the problem here is that Dave Winer picked a very generic 
> name for a very specific technology. He invented one language for 
> embedding remote procedure calls in XML and called it XML-RPC. 
> Sun seems to be using "XML RPC" in a much more generic sense. 

Elliotte,


What you are saying also applies to XML, HTML and other "languages".


I mean, what can be more generic than XML (eXtensible Markup Language)?
Or more generic than HTML (HyperText Markup Language)?

So, why, again, should one not use XML-RPC as the name of something
that is an RPC protocol which uses XML???


OTOH, is it right for me to call "HTML" to new Markup Language for 
Hypertext systems just because it is such a generic name???

Just because I don't like the old-HTML, can I trash it and make a new 
language one with just the same name?


Elliotte, your argument goes against current practice. (*) 


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

(*)I sure prefer "current practice" to confusing situations as what 
is happening with RSS.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 5:30 PM
> To: xml-rpc@yahoogroups.com; soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com;
> decentralization@yahoogroups.com; xml-dev@lists.xml.org;
> xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Cc: Tim O'Reilly
> Subject: Re: Sun and independent developers
> 
> 
> Part of the problem here is that Dave Winer picked a very generic 
> name for a very specific technology. He invented one language for 
> embedding remote procedure calls in XML and called it XML-RPC. 
> Sun seems to be using "XML RPC" in a much more generic sense. 
> 
> It's the same problem the W3C XML Schema Language has. There are 
> many XML schema languages. The W3C chose to call theirs XML 
> Schemas, or even by the more generic name schemas, without any 
> indication that theirs was hardly the only one. 
> 
> I suppose Sun could have titled the draft "RPC in XML" or "XML 
> for RPC" or something like that, but name conflicts do seem 
> inevitable here. I'm afraid the specific XML application 
> "XML-RPC" described at http://www.xml-rpc.com/ does not have a 
> reasonable claim to exclusive use of the three letters XML, the 
> three letters RPC, or even combinations of those two three letter 
> strings. 
> -- 
> 
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+

Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 14:56:45 UTC