On Do, 2004-06-17 at 12:35, John Wilson wrote:
> "MinML-RPC is a minimal XML-RPC implementation. This is very
> interesting, but I have some pushback. There is no such thing as "the
> <nil/> extension." If we added it, it would break at least one
> implementation. Please appreciate the bigger picture. XML-RPC is what
> it is, not something to be endlessly debated and "extended" -- it's
> already totally extensible at the next level up."
>
> ref: http://essaysfromexodus.scripting.com/backIssues/2001/05/13
>
> The discussion on the mailing list following that post lead to the
> removal of <nil> from the Helma XML-RPC implementation.
Well, you got me here. He used to think different at some point,
see
http://www.xmlrpc.com/discuss/msgReader$7?mode=topic
However, I still see a difference between an extension, which is *very*
clearly declared as violating the SPEC and turned on the users behalf
only and the addition of a "nil" element without further notice.
Jochen
