[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:07:36 -0400
• In-reply-to: <r02000000-1026-A9989078C1D811D7A0870003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• References: <3F269068.5040200@e...>

Applications are already allowed to create binary representations of XML - 
this is typically what a parser does. These binary representations are 
currently proprietary. Some of them are persistent, as in some XML databases.

The real question is whether we need a standard for binary representations 
of XML that can be exchanged. If the argument is based on efficiency, then 
a standard may actually cause difficulties - a given representation may be 
very efficient in some scenarios, but not in others. And as the state of 
the art evolves, we may discover more efficient ways to exchange XML than 
those known at the time a standard was devised.

If we had some industry experience with a binary representation that more 
efficient in the range of applications for which it was devised, and we had 
reason to believe that the format we choose this year is not significantly 
different from the format we might want for efficient exchange 5 years from 
now, I think it would be a good idea.

Jonathan

• References:
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: OWL-ish question
• Next by Date: Re: RE: OWL-ish question
• Previous by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by thread: String interning (Was: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread