Re: Binary XML - summary of discussion to date

[James Robertson <jamesr@steptwo.com.au>]

At 18:35 13/04/2001, Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> >4) Regarding human-readability; if the format is ubiquitious like JPEG or
> >ZIP or gzip, then there will be tools to view them, just like there are
> >tools to examine zip files and so on. The human readability argument
> >really only tells us that non-public proprietary standards are bad; it,
> >again, is not really about text vs. binary. The fact that text viewers are
> >very widely available already is a plus point for textual encoding, but
> >it's probably of similar magnitude to the speed gain of binary encoding in
> >many applications :-)
>
>This is utterly cart before the horse.  Things succeed if they fit into
>existing technical infrastructure: the WWW fits on top of the Internet, XML
>fits on top of text and on top of existing APIs for programming languages
>(e.g. printf() in C).  A binary format may have a chance of succeeding if it
>fits on top of XML and it has some significant niche use better than
>encryption and ASN.1.

I find it bizzare that another format is being considered
when support for the existing format (text XML) is so
pathetic!

Sure, there are plenty of Java, Perl and Python tools.
Even some C and C++ libraries. But support across the
board is still along way from being a reality.

I ask now, as I have asked before: can we just stop
creating new stardards, and get on with creating some
useful tools for the standards we already have?

J


-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution

http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@steptwo.com.au