Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Micros
 I'm trying to work it out in short concise statements. This is getting closer and thanks for taking the time to reply. I agree with most of that, but you have to see the implications. 1. No binary will work well enough for all applications to make it worth standardizing on one. 2. Binaries do work well for given applications and they are being developed. This means that any one saying that binaries are bad because they bifurcate the interop problem are being a bit ingenuous. They will bifurcate the interop of formats on the web per application type. That will happen, and now it is a horse race or ye olde colonization scenario. NOTE: I'm not misrepresenting the MS position here. ALL of the major vendors are engaged in this. Now it comes down to the question I asked Liam. What will the outcome be of the perception that some entity, say the W3C, should control the development of these? It is undeniable that development is happening. All of the players are honest about that. In the case of X3D, the W3DC published an RFP for one so that it would become the third encoding in the standard. It doesn't get more straight up than that. What will be the result of having a binary of XAML and a binary for SQL Server? No big whoop because these can be said to be in their own application space. But when there is a binary for XAML and XUL and SQL Server and Oracle, now interop is being compromised and the content on the web is balkanizing. Simply be clear about what 'local' means. If XAML only runs on the MS desktop, and is not an on-the-wire format, ok. But if we are expected to use it on any other desktop OR must serve it out of an Oracle database, that may not be ok. At least in the case of X3D, the consortium is developing ONE for all its members to use PER application type (X3D). Is that clearer? len From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...] <len> So on the one hand, we have someone telling us the XML binary isn't a good idea for interop; on the other, we have a rich application client language developer telling us that is precisely what is intended. Is this a fiefdom issue, or would we expect BAML to emerge as the MS choice for binary XML? I'm not after MS's throat here; I simply am trying to show why it is so difficult to take the MS presentation at the binary workshop seriously. In the rich client 3D world, we already take the need for the binary seriously. It is simply a question of generality. So far, all I see emerging as a consensus is 'the need depends on the application'. </len> Is it misrepresent Microsoft's position on binary XML month? Despite submissions of position papers, numerous mailings to XML-DEV and weblog posts it seems every other mail on XML-DEV about binary XML (or article on XML.com) is about completely misrepresenting our position. Our position has been consistent and it has been clear. Different applications have different optimization requirements and thus it is unlikely that a single binary XML standard will satisfy all scenarios (we're pretty sure it won't satisfy all the scenarios of the various individual Microsoft products) given that in some cases they are conflicting. Even it was the case that a single binary XML standard could somehow satisfy all scenarios and not end up turning into something like W3C XML Schema there is still the fact that this poisons the well with regards to the interoperability of XML on the Web. Given both these points we are against standardizing on binary XML format(s). Nothing in the above argument precludes applications from having optimized representations of XML for their local needs. Does the fact that Microsoft Word can accept WordprocessingML and .doc files somehow mean that .doc files should be the basis of building a binary XML standard or that you suspect .doc files will emerge as Microsoft's choice for binary XML (whatever that means)? I fail to see where the inconsistency in the Microsoft position arises. Len maybe you can explain to me why you fail to take our position seriously? ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl> 
|
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
|
|||||||||
