• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: Al Snell <alaric@a...>
• Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:54:39 -0700

> >     Fragmenting a previously-unified (XML=text)
> > world by creating a binary variant seems a fine start, for any
> > organizations wanting to head that direction.  Large vendors
> > can afford the duplicate investments, when they can forsee
> > it opens the door to more vendor lock-in.  The rest of the world
> > may well prefer to do smarter things with their time/money
> > than helping raise more barriers to market entry.
> 
> Hmmm... throwing petrol onto the fire here, how do you guys feel about XML
> schemas that feature non-XML sublanguages like XPath or the path thingies
> in SVG? 

I certainly see the trend to "big fat XML" as increasing
barriers to entry for new vendors, and promoting customer
lock-in for current vendors.  Don't you?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: "Binary XML" proposals
    • From: "Al B. Snell" <alaric@a...>

• References:
  • Re: "Binary XML" proposals
    • From: Al Snell <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Next by Date: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Previous by thread: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Next by thread: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread