[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: <bob@w...>,"Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@i...>,"Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• From: "Michael Rys" <mrys@m...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:59:08 -0800
• Thread-index: AcOzoTQ+lkjSFDHeQ32zXRFTCFvzLwAEkztQ
• Thread-topic: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)

It is very early in the Longhorn timeframe and I assume that there are
also legal issues they have to consider (regarding consent decree), so
please ask them directly.

And I am not saying that a binary format for interop is bad. What I am
saying is that given that we already have a general interop format in
the area of webservices and the W3C which is XML, there is no need for
another one.

So you are right that I should have qualified my interoperable standard
format with the world of webservices, W3C, OASIS and a couple of others
(but I assumed that this was self-evident given the lists name).

Best regards
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Wyman [mailto:bob@w...]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 1:34 PM
> To: Michael Rys; 'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'; Dare Obasanjo; xml-
> dev@l...
> Subject: RE:  Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was
RE:
> Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
> 
> Michael Rys wrote:
> > I am not close enough to their thinking to know
> > how much they want to have people program towards BAML
> 	If they didn't want people to use BAML, then why did they
> expose the BAML serialization interfaces in the Longhorn
> documentation? The fact that these interfaces are public certainly
> seems to indicate to me that someone expects/wants them to be used...
> 
> > [Michael Rys] Only if people are going to start
> > defining interop on this level.
> 	People started doing interop with binary encodings long ago. I
> won't bore you with references to X.400 and X.500 since you might say
> that they are "tightly-coupled" applications. So, let's look at
> something like the NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) the US National
> Center for Biotechnology Information, that among other things runs the
> GenBank library of genetic sequences. Long ago, they settled on ASN.1
> defined binary encodings for interop. The GenBank format provides for
> general interop between a large variety of applications in the genetic
> sequence space. This is only one of many "interop" applications that
> currently use ASN.1 based binary encodings. (Note: The recent effort
> to produce XML encodings for NCBI data has resulted in a minimum 10x
> expansion of file sizes...)
> 
> > XML is the one format that is defined as
> > the "interoperable standard format".
> 	No. XML is not *the* "interoperble standard format." It is
> only one of them.
> 
> 		bob wyman
> 

• Prev by Date: RE: Abstract Equivalence (was 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: Gold Standard Schema Parser was Re: XML Schema Question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread