|
[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
Claude L Bullard wrote: > would we expect BAML to emerge as the MS choice > for binary XML? Is Microsoft's BAML compatible with the binary format for XML that they use in SQL 2000, etc.? Are these two the *only* binary formats for XML that Microsoft is using or developing? Are there others as well? Joshua Allen of Microsoft wrote on 11/18/2003: > MSFT has been shipping a parse-speed-optimized binary > format for XML since SQL 2000 shipped, so it is not as > if MSFT is totally opposed to native binary encoding of XML. In the Longhorn documentation it says: > "binary XAML (BAML). BAML is far more compact than > either the original text file or a compiled-to-IL assembly. > BAML files download more quickly -- are optimized for download" Why are these binary formats so good for Microsoft yet not good for the rest of us? What is so special about these formats that some standardized format can't be accepted? bob wyman
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








