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

Re: Why XML for Messaging?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
• Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:36:31 -0400
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206FA3@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206FA3@h...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.7.1

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:57 am, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> 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.

I doubt that they are. They just [expletive deleted] up the money
on the pretext of being clever and then just buy the latest
xbox/playstations and go do testing on that.

> That kind of institutional resistance to innovation is
> strikingly strange.   

The more complex and slow xml becomes, the greater 
the demand for xml burocrats and academics, to explain
things that were once so simple.

It's more a question of academics simply not being
able to resist sticking their fingers into things that they 
don't really understand to try to figure them out.

I say this, because academics do a lot of talking about
xml, but not much listening and rarely any action.

Defending XML and the specs is traditionally a role
that you would expect a religious organisation like a
church to hold. That's why we all have to be "sensitive"
to what the academics say.

Being true to the XML value structure is really about
breaking the [expletive deleted] up into little pieces, throwing it
to the lions (customers), and seeing what comes
back alive.

> That XML will be replaced eventually 
> is almost certain given it's inefficiencies for this
> particular application.  

Those sort of things are all fixable. There isn't any
rule to say that xml must be inefficient, although
for many reasons, the specs do force this sort of
thing.

> 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

Also add:

  o A faster XML

David

-- 
Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Faster XML (was: Why XML for Messaging?)
    • From: "Ken North" <kennorth@s...>

• References:
  • Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• 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: Faster XML (was: Why XML for Messaging?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread