Re: XML+RPC vs BCP70 , <?xml?> processing tag abuse?

[Rich Salz <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Second, I didn't attempt to define XML syntax, I defined XML syntax
> for use with a protocol eventually to be called "XML+RPC". The thing
> was about not to leave everything unclear and unmentioned like UserLand
> did.

XML's syntax is defined; the minute you said "I defined XML syntax for 
use..." you headed down the wrong path.  I know you think we're pedantic 
jerks here, but the name "XML" has real definitive meaning.

I understand the goal of trying to write a rigorous definition of 
XML-RPC.  I question how worthwhile this really is -- most folks seem to 
do okay with Dave's little essay, and figure things out.  Do you know 
the phrase "silk purse from a sow's ear"?

Anyhow, if you go forward with this, good luck.  And while you're 
correcting all the ambiguities and inaccuracies in the current XML-RPC 
document, fix the name and call it "XML-like RPC"

	/r$

--
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology                           http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway   http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview  http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html