[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Why XML for Messaging?

• To: 'Chiusano Joseph' <chiusano_joseph@b...>, "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 16:23:30 -0500

It isn't fast enough when used wall-to-wall. I read 
about tuning parsers, etc., but if I am doing that, 
I am not using off-the-shelf COTS.  So why bother?

I'll bet a beer:  when we finally get Longhorn and 
look under the covers, we'll discover MS optimized 
the blazes out of some XML pieces by subsetting it 
and being very persnickety about substitutions.

To be fair, for a lot of XML applications, none 
of this matters.  For applications for which it 
does matter, we're on our own.  That can be ok, 
because as Rich pointed out, we get to choose. 
As long as we are doing that, we may want to 
use another syntax for messaging too.

Still, what will replace XML?  What will it look like? 
Is it hiding in the tall grass or is it laying on 
the shelf at Sun?  It's a fun question.

len


From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@b...]

Why not?

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by Date: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Previous by thread: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by thread: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread