Lists Home |
Date Index |
a few hours only into the thread and already we are re-hashing old ground. Here
are some notes (foolishly) hoping to avoid covering too much littered and dead
- "Binary XML" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing, and most likely will
never be. Whatever binarisation scheme you use you're binarising an infoset.
- Debates as to whether it should "happen" or not are moot: it's already
happened. You may not have seen it yet, but binary infosets are used in many
areas and it's probably too late to stop them if you want to. ISO/MPEG, 3GPP,
ARIB, DVB, DAB, TV Anytime... this is just a small sample of organisations I
know off the top of my head to be investigating (with the intention to use) or
using binary infosets, and then you have the list of companies. These uses are
not meant to happen in closed systems either.
Thus, more interesting questions are imho: Should we find a way of
standardising it before we have an interop nightmare (and before so many people
are interested in it that it becomes impossible to not produce bloat)? In which
cases is it ok to use it? Can a binary infoset be considered an "encoding" of
XML, or is it something completely different (MIME-wise)? Should binarisation be
done by Textual Fanatics or left up to the
("yes", "whenever it solves an XML-related problem", "tough question", "the
former of course")
- On this topic, one frequently hears broad statements from list members of
the type "It won't give you any speedup", "XML parsing is never the bottleneck",
"gzip compression beats anything else/is good enough", etc.
Where it concerns low- to medium- performance applications running on
reasonably powerful boxes, those are true (apart from the "gzip beats anything"
one of course). That, however leaves open high-performance apps, and lower-power
devices. Two big areas. I would very much appreciate it if people believing that
these statements hold in those two cases were to provide empirical data, because
it very flatly contradicts mine.
And of course those statements do not cover requirements relating to
streaming, packaging, fragmenting, random access...
- The "Don't use XML then" argument also comes up quite frequently. In some
cases, it's right on -- XML should clearly only be used when there's a benefit
in using it. In others it's quite hard to buy.
If you have a workflow in which nine steps out of ten use XML and reap great
benefits from it (many existing tools, open, proven, powerful, interoperable,
low coupling, many developers, standard APIs...) but one in which it proves to
be unusable, you basically have two options:
. Reinvent it all. You throw away all the tools, all the knowledge, all the
interop, all the reliability, all the goodies, etc. and recreate them all to be
ad hoc to your system. Why? Because you are using XML for something "it wasn't
designed for" and any other option will get Hans Blix on your ass. Yes, people
do use this argument on occasion.
. Keep it the way it is, but find a way to solve the issues you have in that
one step. This can, in some cases, involve binary infosets. You lose nothing for
the nine other steps, and binfosets can be made to quack like XML so that your
workflow isn't disrupted.
I'm probably forgetting a number of points, but hopefully these will help :)
Robin Berjon <email@example.com>
Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488