RE: Why XML for Messaging?
Microsoft's position has been consistent. We don't think there is a single binary standard that will satisfy the myriad use cases of XML* and more importantly we worry that a 'standardized' binary XML format by an organization like the W3C will lead to fragmentation of the interoperability story of XML. * We just announced that the next version of Office will use compressed XML as its primary file format. Although this works fine for Office, it would not work fine for other products at Microsoft. Similarly I doubt that Sun's fast infoset would be as satisfactory an option for storing office documents. -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost. ________________________________ From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@i...] Sent: Thu 6/2/2005 7:41 AM To: Dare Obasanjo Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: Why XML for Messaging? Because Sun goes to the trouble of getting an international standard for it. Microsoft is fighting that idea. "Paoli's passion for XML and documents shined through the entire talk, especially two of the final points. He spoke out against binary XML, simply saying "No, please," and concluded with a prediction: In 2010 75% of new documents worldwide will be created in XML." http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/06/01/deviant.html The business models of the customers prefer standards. Paoli's tactic ultimately means no binaries unless they are Microsoft-framework supported. Yes, we can do what you suggest. Why bother? We can do that with FastInfoset and be both standard and indemnified. Note that this isn't just Microsoft. IBM is fighting it, the XML community is fighting it, everyone I suspect but the graphics folks and other performance bound implementors. Using big vendor frameworks in situations like this is like dating a vampire: the vampire is sophisticated, rich, slick, and hey it can fly but just before the light begins to dawn on you, it puts the bite on you and now you too have to live in the shadows. My advice to the middle tier vendors: instead of accepting the vampire's embrace, implement the most framework and platform independent means you have even if that means returning to C and C++ and taking on the costs of creating libraries. The short term productivity benefits of using the frameworks are becoming riskier. The independence that XML provided is being replaced by dependence on the libraries and this is far riskier to your marketshare as it enables the platform provider to invade and possess your market while you can't guarantee performance. Don't give up your power to negotiate which is ultimately your willingness to walk away from the table. len (also speaking solely for myself and not my employer) From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...] > Because where one wants to use XML machinery without XML > syntax on the wire, one has to have the infrastructure and if > that means getting it from Sun, so be it. MS doesn't get to > play in that market. Then we are now in the infoset permathread. Sure anyone can come up with a framework that enables passing around binary representations of XML. APIs like SAX and the .NET Framework's XmlReader can be implemented over binary streams as well as text XML. I'm not sure where the idea that this is technology exclusive to Sun and not Microsoft comes from. Can you clarify?
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