[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

• To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@i...>,"Jim Ancona" <jim@a...>
• Subject: RE: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:56:29 -0800
• Cc: "Michael Rys" <mrys@m...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcOzlY/AJ59Tfus4QHKhp4jH2CoU4AAAESXm
• Thread-topic: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)

I've mentioned this offlist before and I'll mention on XML-DEV now. If you have issues with XAML, various people on the Avalon team have made themselves available for public comment via their weblogs. Neither myself nor Michael Rys work in close concert with the Avalon team so speculating on the future directions of the various formats they use isn't a fruitful excercise. if you have questions about XAML tag Rob Relyea on his blog or Filipe Fortes or Chris Anderson or send them an email. 
 
Based on the amount of hubub around XAML simply because it's syntax is XML based I'm beginning to think it was a bad idea for them not to have chosen a different syntax. The irony is that it originally wasn't an XML-based syntax and it was feedback from the various XML teams at Microsoft that made them reconsider their position only for every person with a vested interest in XML-based markup languages for user interface  description to use XAML-bashing to further their agenda. 
 
-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the Earth, minus 40% inheritance tax. 

________________________________

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...]
Sent: Tue 11/25/2003 12:49 PM
To: 'Jim Ancona'
Cc: Michael Rys; xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE:  Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)



I agree with that, Jim.  We are delineating cases.  But we need
to be sure that:

1.  XAML is not an over the wire format, or ever intended to be
submitted as a standard.  Remember, with the binary, it is two
encodings.  So depending on how one defines interop, we do get
two encodings.

2.  That we can live with multiple similar rich client languages
for similar application types (eg, XAML, XUL, and whatever the
inevitable anythingButMicrosoft cabal develops).  We have before.
Competition can be good.

I'm not in favor of premature standards or standards where none
are needed yet.  Just don't be cherry about what happens to markets
we have to share if one doesn't want to be thralled.  I like the
XAML design.  I realize it needs a binary (I worked the MID
project and already had to skin this bear).  I am trying to separate
the requirements into boxes that will make sense to me.  So far:

o  A single binary standard for all XML applications is a
non-starter.

o  Multiple binaries for multiple designs of application
language types are likely.

o  Standards may follow later.  Meanwhile, don't try to use
the XAML, XUL, whatever client in the same way we use HTML.
True with or without the binary but an overlap because true
of the binary too.

len

From: Jim Ancona [mailto:jim@a...]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> From: Michael Rys [mailto:mrys@m...]
>
>
>>[Michael Rys] I think that every fiefdom can use whatever currency and
>>language they want to use. But if you want to simplify interop, you
>>should standardize one currency and one language, one measurement system
>>etc and not have two.

<snip/>

>
> 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. 

I don't see the conflict. Not every use of XML involves interop. Lots of
apps use XML internally as a convenient way to store configuration
information or serialize object graphs. Based on my (admittedly scant)
understanding of XAML, I wouldn't consider running a rich client app
based on XAML to be an example of interop. Why you think it would be
beneficial for BAML to be encoded using a binary XML standard?

As I understand Microsoft's (and a lot of other peoples's) position, it
is that "binary XML" is fine for those non-interop use cases, but you
shouldn't expect that a single binary format will meet every app's
requirements. OTOH, if you are using XML for interop, then you ought to
be using XML-as-marked-up-text as described in the XML Recommendation as
the single XML standard.

Jim

-----------------------------------------------------------------
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>

• Prev by Date: RE: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• Next by Date: RE: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• Previous by thread: RE: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• Next by thread: RE: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread