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

[Mario Salzer <mario@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Larry Masinter wrote:
> An informational document that describes something that doesn't
> follow "best current practice" can describe the reasons
> why it doesn't follow those practices; if they're not good
> reasons, then it can say so.
>
> On the one hand, you talk about XML-RPC as something
> that "already exists", and on the other, you talk about changes
> you might be able to make to it. So it's not clear what the status
> is. Of course it's better to fix things than to describe how they're
> broken. You can even note that "Previous implementations did this
> broken thing, which has now been corrected".

So BCP70 actually tells, that a RFC describing a XML based protocol
should be a bit more precise than just "This is our DTD. Have fun."
And this is then what I'm going to do in that draft (it's far from
finished), especially if there are a lot of things to note.

Also initially I wasn't sure myself HOW to make a standard from the
current XML-RPC. Obviously adding tons of funky features won't do,
and also some of the XML restriction ideas aren't helpful if this
then looked to people like some pseudo-XML (only would hinder adoption
in the end).
So for this draft it's best to just turn over the current restrictions
into a SHOULD-NOT-section, and only demand for obsoletion of the
all-too-silly design mistakes, which are likely to and already were
abused.

However, I only have started to discuss some things with the various
xml-rpc development groups (a dozen); but even if there is some
consense on abonding broken "features", this does not mean that this
becomes part of a final draft. But that's somewhen in the future...

mario