Petr, On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 16:52:25 +0200, "Petr Krenzelok" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > what was your post about? :-) Are you suggesting proper XML support is > needed?
Oh dear...have I become a one-trick pony? A broken record? Actually, I wasn't intending to revive that old rant. I'm sure I've bored people enough with it over the last couple of years. > I think that if RT does not want to produce better XML support > in the language, they could license your stuff? Can your scripts be > used to parse SOAP, WSDL, UDDI? Yes, maybe, sort-of...it depends on just how robust of a solution is required. My scripts aren't suitable for creating a bulletproof-grade solution; for a start my parser lacks namespace support (though I've procrastinated on finishing namespace support that I started eons ago). Further, I don't provide a script to reverse my xml-to-object conversion. Though I've got a script 90% done. Of course, as we know, it is really easy to get software to the 90% completion stage isn't it? Oh...one day I'll finish them...or so I keep telling myself. We do know that there are fine REBOL scripts out there to do XML-RPC, and I *think* SOAP. But I'd bet that all of those scripts (including my own) to be fragile; subject to breaking outside the common cases of XML, or SOAP, or XML-RPC. Nonetheless, within a controlled environment, they may be a sufficient solution. > Or do they use any kind of aproach your > scripts are not capable of parsing? I remember you told me something > like your scripts are not correctly working with XML schemas, as this > is rather complex thing? > Namespaces, schema, etc. You can cook up a solution that doesn't absolutely require these things, but it helps to have support for them. Schemas: yep, they're real complex alright. Gavin. -- Gavin McKenzie http://www3.sympatico.ca/gavin.mckenzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fastmail.fm -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
