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

Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e

• To: xml-dev DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e
• From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:44:33 -0400
• In-reply-to: <p06010209bc9c70c508e9@[192.168.254.88]>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F5F2@h...> <A586A8E1-8A30-11D8-B357-000A95CCC59E@x...> <p06010209bc9c70c508e9@[192.168.254.88]>

On Apr 9, 2004, at 11:32 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

>
> There are some use cases where XML is just not appropriate. I

Right, but "XML" means many things to different people.  There are lots 
of people out there who have a use for XSLT, XPath, XQuery, 
DOM/JDOM/whatever, and other technologies that are based on some 
variation of the XML Infoset rather than syntax .... but the XML 1.0 
syntax is clearly inappropriate.  What are they to do? They are in the 
fuzzy zone where some aspects of XML are appropriate and others are 
not, so it's unrealistic to expect them to forego the real benefits 
they do get from this stuff  [Sigh, this is a permathread, sorry ]

> . However, for what it does work for, it works very well; and trying 
> to make it work better for some of the current use cases, or for new 
> use cases, at the expense of existing use cases and interoperability 
> does not seem wise.
>

I've yet to hear of a proposal that would come at the expense of 
interop for mainstream XML-syntax use cases.   The alternative for most 
people in the situations I discuss is not "bite the bullet, buy more 
hardware, and use XML syntax" -- it's to do something proprietary and 
*intrinsically* non-interoperable.  The question -- a good question, 
and I don't have a position on it -- is whether there is any value in 
coming up with one or more standardized alternative syntaxes with which 
to serialize the XML Infoset (or XQuery data model, or whatever) as 
opposed to letting every application or vendor define their own.  
Prematurely standardizing a "binary" format optimized for one scenario 
could indeed create more pain than gain, but that was the consensus 
that came out of the W3C workshop and goes into the Binary 
Characterization WG. The argument that we must not even identify the 
real bottlenecks or explore  alternatives because that would somehow 
undermine interoperability in the (1997-vintage) mainstream use cases 
just doesn't make sense to me.

• References:
  • RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Next by Date: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Next by thread: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread