Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Michael Rys wrote:
> [Michael Rys] You mean like the format used in the .doc files? :-)
> Binary XML in my opinion flies in the face of loosely-coupled
> interoperability. By adding a "standard" binary XML format (be it
> based on ASN PER/BER or some other scheme) the interoperability gets
> bifurcated and the advantage of a single, auditable, interoperable
> format to be used in loosely-coupled environments disappears. In
> closely-coupled systems, you can use something else than XML (or a
> binary format). Since the coupling is closed, you do not need to
> follow a standard (although there are some reasons why you still may
> use XML).
very true, if MS Office wants to define an interface for other
applications, well and good. Why should we look into the inner functioning
of MS Office?? But as Len pointed out, there needs to be standard binary
format for other cases??
> [Michael Rys] A processing instruction is just a special form of
> Markup. The software needs to understand it to do anything with it. So
> if the software understands a dangerous PI, then you may have a
> security issue, if the software does not understand any PI, then you
> should not.
Regarding PIs, however, I am still not convinced totally. If I have a
latex file and I compile it, all I can get is a dvi file. However, there
are chances of overlooked sideeffects when we have a s/w that "compiles"
an XML document..?? the s/w needs to know to handle the PI, but still...
Anyways, best, murali.