Re: RFC: REST-RPC

Hey.

Unicode support has been a consistent sore spot with XML-RPC.

Some XML-RPC implementations support unicode and others don't.

Boiling away most of the complexity of character sets and encoding, this  
is my understanding of unicode and ascii interoperability.  Please someone  
correct me if I am mistaken.

  - mapping ascii into unicode is uniquivocal and (for most RPC  
implementations) transperent. So implementations sending ascii don't need  
to worry about what the other side is expecting.

  - mapping unicode into ascii is unproblematic when the characters being  
mapped exist in ascii.  So implementations sending unicode within the  
ascii range don't need to worry about what the other side is expecting.

  - mapping unicode characters that don't exist in ascii into ascii is  
problematic (obviously).  If you need to use characters outside the ascii  
range, then you need to make sure the implementations on both sides  
support unicode.

I think part of the reason XML-RPC was such an early adopted XML poster  
child (in my personal experience it was the FIRST compelling use of XML)  
is that details like this one made it relatively easy to ignore much of  
the robustness (and complexity) XML entails and just write a dedicated  
XML-RPC parser.

Now that XML parsers are so widely available, it makes more sense to use  
an existing parser, and then you get unicode for free.

------------->N


On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:39:48 -0700, Ernst de Haan <[email protected]>  
wrote:

> Bryan,
>
>
>> Probably the most fundamental difference between the two is that
>> REST-RPC doesn't use XML for the call.  It uses XML for the response,
>> but the call is in a special language intended to go in the "parameter"
>> piece of an HTTP GET header (I forget the actual name of that).  Here's
> [...]
>> This is supposedly good because "[web] browsers can call such services
>> directly."  What does that mean?  I can see that I could type a call
>> into the "location" field of my browser and get the XML response on my
>> screen, and I can't do that with XML-RPC.  But what good is that?  Is
>> there some other way browsers can use REST-RPC?
>
> Sorry for taking so long to respond. The thread got lost in filters :-)
>
> The importance of being able to use a browser is testability. If you
> have API specifications and a list of your (test/production)
> environments, then you can generate test forms. XINS does this, for
> example:
> http://xins.sf.net/demo/specdocs/myproject/MyFunction-testform.html
>
>> One other difference pointed out is that XML-RPC lacks "Unicode
>> support."  What does that mean?  I know XML-RPC involves Unicode in
>> that it specifies XML, and XML is defined in terms of Unicode code
>> points.  What Unicode capability does REST-RPC have that is missing in
>> XML-RPC?
>
> Officially, Unicode is not supported in XML-RPC. So if you want to be
> compatible, you should not use it. See:
> http://www.xmlrpc.com/discuss/msgReader$2129
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Ernst
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 





---
(([^/]+)/([^/]+)){0,1}/*(([^/]+)/([^/]+)){0,1}/*(([^/]+)/([^/]+)){0,1}/*
(([^/]+)/([^/]+)){0,1}/*(([^/]+)/([^/]+)){0,1}/*(([^/]+)/([^/]+)){0,1}/*
---



Nathan Young
N. C. Young Design
(530)629-4176
http://ncyoung.com


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xml-rpc/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/