From: "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...>
Date: 2001-07-17T10:44:21+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:17955] Re: Movement in scripting language communities to  integrate XML-RPC

Hi,

> From: Tobias Reif [mailto:tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 12:41 AM

> "out of the box" by including
> > > |these libraries in the standard distribution?
> 
> > Therefor to be useful, at least NQXML must be included, too.
> 
> Stuff in the standard distibution should comply 100% with the
> corresponding specifications.

Hmm...  I should disagree this.  Requiring 100% compliance
with the standardized spec. throws many usable libs out
such as net/*.  Of course I know its authers try hard to
follow the corresponding specs. I really appreciate it.
Thank you.

Regards to NQXML:  Though it is very interesting idea to
add it to std lib in point of pure Ruby library, I think
we should wait ruby/1.8 with m17n and NQXML's CES support.
In SOAP4R, I added limited CES conversion support using
$KCODE with modules uconv, nkf and iconv(using iconv module
is planned but not implemented for now).

Regars to SOAP4R:  SOAP spec. arrive at W3C WD(SOAP/1.2) at
last.  And Microsoft adopted SOAP/1.1(not 1.2) for .Net
SOAP implementations (ASP.Net, .Net Remoting, ATL Server
and SOAPTK2.0).  Thinking of those release date and spec.
1.2 is still WD, their adoption seems right, but a little
confusion is expected within the comming year around SOAP
(and XMLP: XML Protocol) world.

Developers who adopt SOAP now must follow up-to-date
information in SOAP world.  Thus, it should not be included
in std. lib.

Regards to XML-RPC:  I know XML-RPC module works fast and
very well, and well documented than SOAP4R (SOAP4R has no
document), but I do not know its spec. stability.  MNeumann?

Regards,
// NaHi