Re: Binary XML - summary of discussion to date

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

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, James Robertson wrote:

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

Wow - when I had an argument with somebody I know about not using XML for
data transfer because of the problems of it being text-based, suggesting
XDR instead, he said that XML implementations were commonly available and
that was more important for interoperability than the issues I was raising
:-)

The kinds of binary formats I am visualising ought to be easier to
implement than text-XML parsers, and it should look much more credible as
a data transfer format (to the existing data transfer community, who are
*very* bandwidth conscious and put a lot of effort into finding compact
binary formats)... if I wasn't doing this I'd be defining a binary format
that competes with XML, because whichever way it goes, I need a good
binary interchange format defined, so be glad I'm working on one that
should benefit XML :-)

> 
> J
> 

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