Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: The Rising Sun: How XML Binary Restored the Fortune s of
 > -----Original Message----- > From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@i...] > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 12:09 > To: 'Elliotte Rusty Harold' > Cc: xml-dev > Subject: RE: The Rising Sun: How XML Binary > Restored the Fortune s of Innovators > > > It isn't security. It is inscrutability. They don't buy into "View > Source". > They hate it. I don't think it's a good reason either > because like many, > I learn from view source, but when you spend as much as these > guys do on > content production, I guess you look for every possible way > to maintain > a window of opportunity. Can you open and inspect a Flash > file? (I don't > know really; I don't make Flash files.) I was wondering... If there were a viewer available for Fast Infoset, something that displayed a FI document (say, like the Microsoft IE builtin XML 1.0 viewer does), would that comply with the "view source" paradigm? I'd say yes. (FI can easily be rendered as XML 1.0 on the fly.) What is the profound difference between the act of displaying an XML 1.0 document using the Microsoft XML 1.0 viewer and the act of displaying a FI document using a FI viewer that produces a display that looks exactly the same as the former? Of course, XML 1.0 is XML 1.0 and Fast Infoset is Fast Infoset -- the main thing they have in common is that both can be properly used to serialize an XML infoset. But my question relates specifically to the "view source" paradigm and to the **rendering** of the underlying byte stream done by the MS XML 1.0 viewer that is built into IE. True, with XML 1.0 you can use any Unicode viewer (or any EBCDIC viewer, or any SHIFT_JIS viewer, or any xyz viewer, etc., depending on the circumstances) -- you don't have to use a specific program like the MS XML 1.0 viewer that is built into IE. But still, if FI viewers became ubiquitous, what would be the fundamental reason for concluding that FI does not comply with the "view source" paradigm? Is this whole issue just a matter of widespread availability of viewers? Alessandro > > You have to argue with the game and computer-aided design > vendors, Rusty. > The situation is that they get what they demand and if the W3C doesn't > cater, > that's ok, but the W3DC has to because these are their > members with their > own perceptions and business models. The W3DC liases with > the W3C and > as much as it can, tries to keep its standards consistent > with those from > the W3C, but at the end of the day, it creates ISO standards which is > another reason to use FI. > > len > > 
|
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
|
|||||||||
