On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Chris Webb <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:chris.webb@elastichosts.com">chris.webb@elastichosts.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">&gt; Actually you&#39;re spot on - I&#39;m just pointing out what&#39;s common and conceding<br>
&gt; that we should be flexible about the 1&#39;s and 0&#39;s.<br>
<br>
</div>Great, I agree with both of you!<br>
<br>
Our supporting a variety of API formats has given a significant win for<br>
those end-users not using heavyweight XML-friendly languages, e.g. writing<br>
shell scripts in the way one might when working with traditional<br>
infrastructure and the contents of one&#39;s virtual machines. I don&#39;t want to<br>
lose that user-convenience.</blockquote></div><br>Great! So another bonus of having XML available at the top end is that it can be trivially transformed into whatever you like. For example, did you know that behind the scenes <a href="http://google.com">google.com</a> <a href="http://www.google.com/coop/docs/cse/resultsxml.html#wsXMLExample">renders search results in XML</a> before using XSLT to transform them into HTML?<br>
<br>I don&#39;t want to talk too much about what the future holds for OCCI (for fear of accusation of boiling the ocean et al) but there would be nothing stopping an XSLT god (e.g. not me) from writing an XSLT based web interface with all the ontological, taxonomical &amp; semantic goodness their heart desired ;)<br>
<br>Sam<br><br>