Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: Google + SOAP

From: gavin_mckenzie:fastmail:fm at: 1-May-2002 11:06

Michael, Hopefully we'll hear from Christian on what he meant...but I couldn't resist jumping in. IMO, whether XML is simple or complex is a matter of perspective. A classic half-full, or half-empty scenario. But, some people probably also think that the contents of the glass have long exceeded the limits of surface tension and are spilling out onto the floor. XML itself is wonderfully simple. That is, the XML 1.0 Recommendation is simple. You can create your own wee grammars / markup-languages with it without breaking a sweat. If you are a person tasked with designing a set of interoperable data/message formats within a closed-system that you control, then you can adopt XML easily and quickly. Of course, given that you live in a happy world of a closed system where you own the data flows, it might also be tempting (or considered the 'one true way' by people on this list) to say "pshaw!" to XML and use a REBOL-centric approach for designing your data/message formats instead. If, on the other hand, you are someone who has to build your software in such a way that it can interoperate with other people's software (that you have no control over) then XML can be a blessing; but, XML won't seem so simple anymore. This is because what makes XML 'not so simple' in this scenario is that it has a bunch of friends and neighbours called: - XML Namespaces - XML Schema and/or DTD - XSLT, XPath - XML-DOM - the list goes on... The associated technologies build on the original XML 1.0 and extend XML in various directions. Many of those technologies are vitally important to being able to interoperate with someone else's system that claims to speak "XML" or to create compound/hybrid data formats or message types. So, XML really is simple. You can learn most of "XML" in a couple of hours. Becoming an expert takes a *looong* time. The devil is in the details. For some, the details in XML do more than introduce you to the devil; they drop you in the seventh level of hell! Whether this matters to you is, again, a matter of perspective. What problem are you trying to solve? How much XML do you need? Gavin. P.S. My desires for REBOL to have a more robust foundation for XML processing are because I believe that REBOL *is* a horizontally positioned technology. REBOL, IMHO, is supposed to help me create 'glue' that binds applications together. Therefore, I desire all that extra XML "stuff" in REBOL beyond just simple XML. On Wed, 1 May 2002 00:41:18 -0400, "Michael Appelmans" <[mla--itinko--com]> said:
> I have met complex women and seen glorious sunsets! I admit I have yet > to run into one complex XML document "in its full glory". Please, > someone enlighten me, what am I missing here :-? > > Michael >
-- Gavin McKenzie [gavin_mckenzie--fastmail--fm]