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

RE: Re: [ubl-dev] Top 10 uses of XML in 2007

• From: "Stephen Green" <stephen.green@b...>
• To: <ubl-dev@l...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:47:27 +0000

Michael Champion wrote:
<quote>
What's worthy of debate is whether creating an XML-specific optimized binary format ("binary XML" or "Efficient XML Interchange" (EXI) are the usual labels) has a net good or bad effect.
</quote>

Very well put. In the case of e-commerce, having this in addition to 
a language like UBL - the compression over the top - seems a definite
good where both parties' systems have the means to handle the
technology, like Michael adds, with the benefit of knowing the schema
to get the real advantages. UBL includes ASN.1 schemas alongside
its W3C XML Schema ones to this end I believe. This would seem to
me (and it would be great to have a good set of the hard facts about
it) to preserve the benefits of e-commerce embracing XML, while
factoring back in the advantages EDI had in message succinctness.
If it all gets done without the need for finance system developers
being involved with it - as it were invisibly 'on the wire' almost - then
who would want to turn it down as an added feature if the cost were
kept to a minimum (as might happen with better standardisation).
I'd be happy with it. If firewalls would be happy too (I'd like  to know
that bit) then all the better.

Not sure if there is no advantage in using UBL, say, if both sides
know the schema. There's something not quite logical in that idea
but in some cases other than e-commerce it might make sense.

Office documents though are another matter.

All the best

Stephen Green


>>> "Michael Champion" <mc@x...> 19/02/07 18:22:54 >>>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elliotte Harold [mailto:elharo@m...] 
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 8:56 AM
> To: Stephen Green
> Cc: David RR Webber (XML); Stephen Green; ubl-dev@l...; xml-
> dev@l... 
> Subject: Re:  Re: [ubl-dev] Top 10 uses of XML in 2007
> 
> 
> Binary formats are not a
> magic panacea to improve performance. In many cases, XML is actually
> smaller than competing binary formats. (Compare OpenDocument to the
> equivalent Microsoft Office binary, for example.)

I think that is Steven Green's point - ZIPing the XML in ODF or OOXML documents creates a "binary" version not an XML text document.  Still, I agree with Elliotte that the net effect is to have the advantages of XML text because ZIP is so standardized and optimized for medium-to-large documents such as those one would create with OO or MS Office.  What's worthy of debate is whether creating an XML-specific optimized binary format ("binary XML" or "Efficient XML Interchange" (EXI) are the usual labels) has a net good or bad effect.

> 
> There are a lot of myths and wild guesses about performance. I don't
> doubt that people who never bother to crack open an analyzer or write a
> good benchmark will switch to binary XML for no good reason. That's a
> big reason I oppose it. 

I'm not sure I'm quite as cynical about the target audience, but the point is very well taken:  People should NOT follow the syllogism: "I have an XML performance problem, binary XML has better performance, so I should use binary XML to solve my problem." It is critical to understand where the bottleneck is, and address it in a way that preserves whichever of XML's advantages are critical to an application while mitigating whatever disadvantage is leading to the bottleneck.

> The only areas in which the arguments for binary
> XML are the least bit compelling are in the wireless space, and that has
> a lot more to do with battery life than document size.

OK, but there are other scenarios as well.  For example, it is usually true that XML messages (SOAP, POX, ebXML, whatever) are about 10x larger than comparable "binary" messages using the previous generation of technologies. *IF* that leads to bandwidth bottlenecks and the messages are not large enough to benefit from ZIP compression, a binary XML format might be useful irrespective of whether the network is wired or wireless. Likewise, one may find (as we do with SQL Server) that the XML parsing / serialization process is a bottleneck on the server, so users can configure things so that a binary XML format that is extremely fast to produce and consume BY THE SERVER is sent to the client layer to be translated back and forth to XML.  That's just a trick to move the XML processing burden to a less utilized processor, but it is a real use case for binary XML.

The interesting question is to what extent a W3C EXI standard will actually help outside the wireless domain.  I'm unpersuaded by what I've seen so far -- impressive compression seems to be achieved only if both ends of the wire know the schema.  It seems to me that if both ends (and all XML-aware intermediaries, e.g. WS-Security processors) know exactly what the format is, the app wouldn't need XML at all. Likewise, it doesn't help the "offload the expensive XML processing" use case because the EXI standard will not be a dump of anyone's proprietary data structures (which of course is good for interop even if it is bad for performance of the app that uses those proprietary data structures!).  But we shall see .. the W3C EXI WG has collected a mountain of information that I haven't tried very hard to make sense of. I think they are working on presenting it in a more digestible form, and then we can debate with solid numbers.


_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ 
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l... 
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l... 
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ 
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php 

______________________________________________________________________
Please note the new simpler name for our website: http://www.bristol.gov.uk 

Our email addresses have also changed - visit http://www.bristol.gov.uk/bigchange for further details.

Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say  and event information at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect 



______________________________________________________________________
Please note the new simpler name for our website: http://www.bristol.gov.uk

Our email addresses have also changed - visit http://www.bristol.gov.uk/bigchange for further details.

Sign-up for our email bulletin giving news, have-your-say  and event information at: http://www.bristol.gov.uk/newsdirect