RE: Alternatives to browsers (was Re: Alternatives to the W3C)
Hi Sabin, Sabin said: Remember that my original question was, 'Why is _application_ specific_ markup preferable to an _application_specific_ binary wire protocol'. XML encoding gets you a common generic format, but it doesn't get you semantic transparency. So, sure, you'd be able to parse the contents of XML rpc packets, but that doesn't mean you'll be able to do anything interesting with them. Didier replies: Off course not in all cases. But, the fact that on some occasions you can communicate with an object from something which is not an object (i.e. with a browser) and that you can get the content of a message displayable can indeed be useful. So, to use XML as a marshaling format, you gain more versatility but you gained this with an increased usage of the bandwidth if the transmission is in a compressed format. So, the best configuration seems to be xml in compressed format over HTTP as a marshaling format. So, overall it can be made better than strict binary marshaling. Cheers Didier PH Martin ---------------------------------------------- Email: martind@n... Conferences: Web New York (http://www.mfweb.com) Book to come soon: XML Pro published by Wrox Press Products: http://www.netfolder.com xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format