|
Paul: "XForms allows HTML to do an XML POST but that doesn't bring SOAP any closer to HTTP GET's hyperlinking capabilities."
Thanks for the reference to XForms... I hope it finds implementation support in the major browsers.
Note I'm not pushing SOAP. I just prefer XML both as the input to a POST, as well as the output.
SC: "I didn't "get" SOAP earlier. Now that I get it, I don't like its horrible verbosity. However I would prefer using XML to post queries rather than using GET and CGI variables though."
...
Paul: "Do you have a technical argument for why that is???"
Yes. (1) a schema may be used to validate input. (2) the self documenting nature of XML.
There's no point in saving 10% or 15% in the size of a HTTP transaction and giving up much more in clarity and ease of use. Having both the data and the method call document itself in plain text is a very valuable development help. Think of the EDI v/s XML tussle.
SC: "Also I think you've may have overestimated the computational expense. CGI variables have to be parsed the same way as XML is. With most webservers moving XML (and SOAP?) parsers into the core of the webserver engine, this will be less of a computational expense."
...
Paul: "It will always be expensive to base-64 encode a megabyte document."
Eh? :)
What about URL-encoding that same document?
An HTML editor, may be able to easily edit and even validate an XML document request embedded as part of a web page.
On a side note, i think SOAP documents are very complex. I guess the complexity is required for fulfilling some of its aims, but if we keep standards simple, there is a better chance that they will be adopted.
|
Previous Message
Up
