Gavin McKenzie wrote: >Carl, > >I love REBOL, and I love XML. Well, ok...so my paycheques come in >large part from XML; hence, maybe there's a difference. > >I'm sorta feeling like your email is comparing a web protocol with a >programming language. It feels like apples and oranges. > >REBOL is good because it has networking built-in, thus I don't have to >hand-code HTTP -- I can just do a read http://... >HTTP remains a good and successful protocol, and REBOL is a great >language. > >You're not comparing SOAP/XML to REBOL though, are you? That wouldn't >seem to be a fruitful exercise. One is a protocol and >meta-markup-language, and the other is a programming language. They're >both good at what they do. > >Ok, so maybe your point is that creating functions like >Do-Google-Search remove the need to hand-code the SOAP/XML protocol? >Ok, that's good, and probably self-evident. That's what we use >programming languages for -- to construct reusable bits of code that do >heavy-lifting on our behalf. > >Presumably that a C++ or Java function like doGoogleSearch(...) would >illustrate your point equally well? > >Sorry if I've completely missed the gist of your email. Maybe I need >another cup of coffee to clear my head. > >Gavin. > > Hello Gavi,
what was your post about? :-) Are you suggesting proper XML support is needed? 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? 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? Thanks a lot, -pekr- -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
