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

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

• To: 'Mike Champion' <mc@x...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:55:23 -0500

You need to chat with Don Brutzman who heads up the 
XMSF and X3D efforts.  It can be the case that there are 
applications for which a binary is useful.  Graphics people 
I talk to consider it a trivial task but there are issues 
of geometric compression that require one to pick an 
algorithm which can or might not be proprietary, so it 
is considered a good thing to bolt those in so everyone
can play.  OTOOH, there is plenty of public domain stuff.

IOW, not spawn of the devil, but without some care, one
can trip on the sulphur.

The big question, IMO, is whether or not a single binary spec 
does enough for any XML application to make it worth 
having.  It could be the case that advantages accrue 
the more application-specific it is and that interoperability 
concerns are in the domains of specific application languages. 
I understand the concern that a binary is NOT XML, but 
lossless translatibility is often the best one gets.

len


From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...]

I'm asking for flames on Permathread 2, "Binary 
XML is evil / No, it's needed for industrial-strength XML". :-)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Programming XML with PHP
• Next by Date: Re: more politics
• Previous by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread