[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:55:23 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len)
<clbullar@ingr.com> wrote:
>
> The big question, IMO, is whether or not a single binary spec does enough
> for any XML application to make it worth having.
I agree. As I recall, the TAG discussion on this sortof ended on the note,
'well, better one "binary XML" standard than a bazillion contending ones.'
It's not at all clear, however, that there can be one that works for
compression and parsing optimization, for well-formed and schema-defined
XML, for documents and data, etc.
> I understand the concern that a binary is NOT XML, but lossless
> translatibility is often the best one gets.
Yeah, this gets into the "XML: Syntax or Infoset" permathread, but I agree
that "lossless translatability" to the 1.0 syntax is the most important
criterion for determining whether something has "XML nature".
[reordering Len's points for my own rhetorical purposes]
> IOW, not spawn of the devil, but without some care, one
> can trip on the sulphur.
Sure. Lots of brimstone vapors in the air. But *if* the working
hypothesis that various aspects of XML 1.0 format conspire to make it much
slower to parse than alternatives that have "XML nature," it's not clear to
me how the world is worse off if the W3C works with the demons rather than
letting them run wild. [The Ministry of Magic's arrangement with the
Dementors comes to mind :-) -- they were problematic as guards at Azkhaban,
but they may be far worse as allies of Voldemort! ] Those who think "Binary
XML" is the spawn of the devil might wish someday that the W3C had kept the
demon spawn on the payroll rather than free to ally with the various Dark
Forces out there :-)
|
