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

RE: Why XML for Messaging?

• To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <len.bullard@i...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 13:15:43 -0700
• Thread-index: AcVmwmnxrrNK4bnqRC2K2xGzG+6JpQAI8TBg
• Thread-topic: Why XML for Messaging?

XML is sub-optimal for almost every task we use it for. 

It is suboptimal as a document format for the Web. It is suboptimal as a
wire format for distributed computing. It is suboptimal as a program
configuration file format. It is suboptimal as a syntax for programming
languages. It is suboptimal as an business document format. 

However it is "good enough" at being all these things that we put up
with it. Anyone can come up with a better format for their specific
scenario. So what? 

--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
All diets let you eat as much as you want of the things you don't like.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@i...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 8:57 AM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject:  Why XML for Messaging?
> 
> It is interesting that articles about XML messaging discuss 
> the advantages of messaging thoroughly but when the question 
> of 'why XML' comes up, the answers are reduced to 'because it 
> is there'.  In some articles, the problems of XML verbosity 
> and other nits are elaborated, but at the end, the same 
> answer 'because it is there' or 'there are no attractive 
> alternatives' are given.  Laziness or just momentum?
> 
> While I don't expect an industry with so much invested in XML 
> to do this, I am surprised that universities and other 
> research labs are not working on that side of the problem. 
> Perhaps they are but aren't saying much about it.
> 
> Indeed, when a binary XML as an alternative is proposed and 
> solutions are documented, the WG is asked to jump through 
> hoops not asked of any other working group.
> 
> That kind of institutional resistance to innovation is 
> strikingly strange.   That XML will be replaced eventually 
> is almost certain given it's inefficiencies for this 
> particular application.  While that time has not come, it is 
> a provocative thought experiment to speculate on the shape 
> and characteristics of its successor.
> 
> o  A simpler XML?
> 
> o  A smarter XML?
> 
> o  Binary XML
> 
> All known and there have been attempts.
> 
> o  Objects
> 
> The third is what some were after before the web.  
> Why not send compiled objects?  (I know some of these reasons 
> but from time to time, it is useful to start from a fresh 
> perspective.)
> 
> len
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org 
> <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS 
> <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> 
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@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