Hi Randal,
Thanks. I've added those links to the web site and quoted you... ;--).
While it is important to consider other standards especially if they are popular it's also important to make sure that the XML Smalltalk format doesn't compromise any smalltalk related requirements. XML is great for the exact reason that it's extensible.
Peter William Lount peter@smalltalk.org http://xml.smalltalk.org
---------- From: Randal L. Schwartz merlyn@stonehenge.com To: Peter William Lount peter@smalltalk.org Cc: Squeak Mail List squeak@cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: xml.smalltalk.org and mod.smalltalk.org Date: January 28, 2000 12:50 PM
"Peter" == Peter William Lount peter@smalltalk.org writes:
Peter> I think it's important that we have a "XML" ASCII standard for Peter> storing BOTH "Smalltalk source code" and "Smalltalk object Peter> instances". Interoperatability is becoming very important and Peter> being able to share object instances with other languages and Peter> systems would revolutionize the Smalltalk usage in the real Peter> world.
If you want an XML marshalling for objects, it'd be great to be compatible with either the WDDX standard, or the SOAP standard, as much as possible. Unfortunately, both seem to have big backers (SOAP from M$, and WDDX from Allaire), and are incompatible. SOAP seems to have derived from the XML-RPC camp, which also has more visibility.
SOAP is at http://www.develop.com/soap/ WDDX is at http://www.wddx.org/
Peter> In addition I think it's important that there be an Apache Web Peter> Server module for Smalltalk. A ModSmalltalk. Any computer Peter> language that tightly intergrates and interoperates with the Peter> Apache Web server in an Open Source manner can gain prominance Peter> in the Web Site and Web Applications Market. Smalltalk has an Peter> excellent potential to be the engine behind many powerful, yet Peter> to be built, web sites.
Oooh oooh!
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org