Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Pushing all the buttons
 Joshua Allen wrote: >People seem eager to forget how the world was before XML 1.0. Too-clever people can argue all day that "XML 1.0 is qualitatively not much better than CSV". But this misses the point. XML 1.0 has been able to achieve a degree of ubiquity and platform support that makes it "the obvious choice" for people who previously had to cho Why people are so hasty to go back to a world of multiple, incompatible encoding techniques is beyond me. For God's sake lets be happy that we have XML 1.0 and progress to the new millennium where we get to argue about incompatible schemas instead. > > Having different encodings does necessarily mean incompatibility. Good browsers support GIF, JPEG and PNG without any problem: if the infrastructure allows plurality, then having a few different mainstream alternatives with different tradeoffs gives richness. This is where, most notably, W3C XML Schemas fails: it does not provide a mechanism to allow parts of it that fail to be readily improved or swapped out. People are stuck with the whole thing. A truism: XML is only the obvious choice because the underlying Web infrastructure allows choices. What I would like to see from Liam's conference would be a working benchmarking suite, to allow characterization and comparison of different (implementations of) binary<->XML, binary<->DOM and binary<->SAX systems. Plus discussion of whether the current MIME headers for content types and compression are satisfactory, and whether there are several different requirements:-- one for "compressed XML", one for "random access infosets" and so on. I don't see that working towards standard binary infoset exchange formats necessary means that there must only be one; indeed, as I said, I think that is definitely the wrong expectation for people to have in their heads. The first step should be to ensure that plurality is supported, and battle out what the characteristics and uses of different formats are, *then*, to the extent that there is a clear requirement and agreement, develop or sanction a specific W3C approach. (What it means is that MS should have its preferred compression method but also support the one that becomes popular in Linux; similarly, the Linux people can have theirs, but also support the one from MS. For example both of an ASN.1 encoding and an optimized GZIP, etc. The most important thing is that the infrastructure must support multiple forms of binary, to allow market and technical forces to work in favour of whatever the current best choices are.) Cheers Rick Jelliffe 
|
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
|
|||||||||
