RE: "Binary XML" proposals

["Al B. Snell" <alaric@alaric-snell.com>]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Clark C. Evans wrote:

> XML is going to suceed where other file formats have
> failed beacuse it is auditable -- I, a mere human, can
> pull up the code and read it with my own eyes and
> without an intermediate reader which could be at fault.

That's a bit of a myth - you need an ASCII or UTF-8 text reader coupled to
something that can interpret electrical signals in a serial cable or the
magnetic blips on a disk; what you *really* mean is that most OSes come
with a tool for viewing ASCII or UTF-8 text files that can be used to view
XML. That's a slightly less absolute distinction. Most OSes come with
tools for viewing JPEGs and GIFs, too.

> Good luck. But if you are "extending XML" don't call it XML, or
> even "binary XML".  That would be bad.  

Indeed

> It is interesting that your project is the antithesis 
> of SML-DEV, where we *love* the textual XML format
> but just think that the structure is a bit too complicated.

Cool' got a URL?

> P.S.  I agree wholeheartedly with Tim Bray and Sean
>       McGrath's posts.  Binary XML is dead on arrival.
>       Getting away from binary formats is the _entire_
>       reason for XML.  Being able to audit your
>       inputs and outputs.  

Why do people think standardised binary formats can't be audited? Haven't
they ever used a *filesystem*, a zip file, an image viewer, or any other
freely available and ubiquitous binary file format viewer before?

ABS

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software