[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion writes:
> And that's precisely why the old compromises are being questioned in
> numerous back offices around the world; XML is so popular that a small
> minority of users can add up to thousands of people and lots of
> gigabytes.
That's another good point -- it's interesting that people are using
XML in the back office at all, except as a way to move information
between their systems and the outside world (or the archive). I agree
that XML is not always a good fit for that, since it was designed as
an interchange format, not a storage and retrieval format. I don't
know if we in the XML activity are best qualified to define the
formats that would be a good fit for internal data storage and
retrieval -- even the SQL people don't specify that.
> The case for alternative serializations really couldn't have been
> plausibly made until very recently. Now there are all sorts of
> people who want to author in WikiML or whatever, parse thousands of
> messages a minute, send XML to wristwatches, etc.
First, someone needs to establish what the extra overhead of XML over
binary formats (bandwidth and processing time) actually is in
realistic use cases. If we're dealing with wristwatches that display
images or even video, for example, then relatively speaking any text
format (including XML) represents a negligable bandwidth and storage
hit.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, david@megginson.com, http://www.megginson.com/
|
