-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bray [mailto:]
> Sent: 27 April 2002 05:06
> Cc: xml-dev
> Subject: [xml-dev] Bits on the wire: more drum-banging
>
>
> I had a big argument over something Dave Winer said a few
> years ago and
> he captured my rant and posted it at
> http://static.userland.com/misc/timBrayOnSdk.html
>
> For what it's worth, I think that at the architecture level,
> the choice
> between demanding to see the bits-on-the-wire and being
> satisfied with
> an API is probably the deepest one there is. -Tim
Tim, you said:
"This is not just a Unix-vs-PC thing - the X window system is one
of the most extreme examples of the big, hairy, complicated, API
(the rumor that they ever actually fully documented the wire
protocol is false)."
I wonder where protocols fit in all this. If you don't have a
properly documented protocol, I don't see how getting at the bits
helps. Is it assumed that either the APIs or the bits are backed by
a protocol? Or are you thinking about APIs as a way of pretending
the network/protocol isn't really there?
Bill de hÓra
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4
iQA/AwUBPMpceeaWiFwg2CH4EQK/JQCgzEGB3zLCCghLUGM0rVvl1EVdawUAoN43
BWdSW59SV8Os+kmnD3uy7KJq
=boNs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
