[REBOL] Re: Google + SOAP
From: gavin_mckenzie:fastmail:fm at: 1-May-2002 11:06
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
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
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
- 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
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?
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]>
> 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 :-?