[e-lang] [RFP] cross-language object serialization (E <---> Squeak-E)

Mark S. Miller markm at caplet.com
Mon Jan 20 22:19:58 UTC 2003

At 12:44 PM 1/20/2003 Monday, Tyler Close wrote:
> No, but doc-code is just an alternate representation of the XML.
> XML is a standard. There are standards for specifying the
> structure of an XML document. XML also seems to be a more popular
> standard than CORBA. If you're looking to jump on a bandwagon, XML
> seems like the better horse to bet on.

I endorse this perspective. In the modern world, for a system to be 
adopted, code must use curly braces and data must use angle brackets. 
as E concedes on the curly bracket front (ie, the C-tradition syntax 
in a minimally offensive way, and without conceding on the issues that
matter; it looks to be me that WOS does likewise on the angle bracket 
(ie, the XML compatibility issue).

To reiterate, what I need for the next CapTP is a readable textual 
that can honestly claim to be XML compatible without paying the 
costs that normally come with such a claim, together with an efficient
binary syntax which encodes exactly the same meaning. WOS looks like it
meets these goals well. I've heard the OMG has defined an XML syntax 
but I
haven't seen it. David, do you have a URL? For use in CapTP, any 
of CDR to WOS must compare both the binary syntaxes and the XML 

Technically, saying "CDR compatible" means something, whereas saying 
compatible" is mostly vacuous[*]. But marketing-wise, the situation is
reversed. The world has gotten stupid.

[*] Saying "Compatible with XML DTD Foo" would be non-vacuous, but 
there is
no standard XML DTD I'm aware of that would be suitable for this 

Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain


e-lang mailing list
e-lang at mail.eros-os.org

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list