[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Karl Waclawek wrote:
> For me, the main question where I have difficulty is to decide
> what the difference would be other than loosing human readability.
The thread's been there before. It usually falls into the expected tarpit: some
people will say that text is human-readable, others will say that it depends on
the encoding (UTF-16 on a US-ASCII box, gzip, etc), others still will hold the
point of view that anything that has a viewer is human readable, be it a JPEG
with an image viewer or text with a text editor. After increasingly specious
arguments, the thread dies off.
> Let's assume we would have had a binary XML specification from
> the beginning, everything basically the same, just binary streaming format,
> but same Infoset, same APIs for reporting XML content.
> What would be the difference? For the programmer? For the platforms?
It would be horrible. Quite simply horrible. But then, it would never have taken
off so we wouldn't be discussing it.
Binary XML is a contradiction in adjecto. That's why I'm anti-binxml: simply
because there is no such thing as "Binary XML". Binary Infosets however are
another story completely, and much more interesting :)
--
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
