[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Binary XML" proposals
- From: "Al B. Snell" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Clark C. Evans" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:09:45 +0100 (BST)
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.
> 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?
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