RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 webl
Robin Berjon wrote: >Michael Champion wrote: >> The 'binary XML' stuff got a lot less hostile reception than I >> expected. Is the world ready to hear that XML 1.x text serialization >> is not suitable for wireless applications, is this old news, or what? >during a recent presentation I tried to outrage the audience with >some over-the-top pro-binary XML positions (expecting to use the >push-back to moderate them) And in Mike's talk, he did not do this. He put everything I had heard in context, including counter-arguments to the various arguments, so there was little reason to get hostile. For example, there was his point (whether his own or quoting of other people) that just because XML doesn't suit a particular class of applications well doesn't necessarily mean that XML should be twisted inside out to accommodate that class of apps; perhaps it means that that class of apps should look elsewhere for its needs. His answer to my question at the end convinced me to maintain my current level of skepticism: apparently all of the talk of alternative XML encodings being much more efficient than text XML are based on consistent use of document classes for each test, so this consistency means the kind of redundancy that makes compression much easier. When someone prototypes an encoding that is orders of magnitude more efficient for arbitrary XML, which Mike said that no one had done yet, I'll more seriously consider the possibility that a binary XML standard might be worth the trouble. (Mike, please correct me if I misremember. And it was nice to finally meet you!) Bob DuCharme www.snee.com/bob <bob@ snee.com> weblog on linking-related topics: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/1191
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