Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: Michael Rys [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>[Michael Rys] I think that every fiefdom can use whatever currency and
>language they want to use. But if you want to simplify interop, you
>should standardize one currency and one language, one measurement system
>etc and not have two. There is nothing in my mail that claims that
>others cannot use a binary format. But once you want to enable real
>interop, I think having only one standard format is much preferable to n
Accepting that that is your position, and ostensibly a Microsoft position
given the paper presented at the binary workshop, here is what many in the
developer world see themselves as up against.
This is from Rob Relyea's blog on XAML:
># re: Why is XAML well-formed XML?
>Avalon can use XML at runtime, but the general case will probably not be
doing that. We compile XAML into a combination of
>code (jscript, c# or whatever language you may choose) and BAML. BAML is a
binary format that is a representation of the
>hierarchy of elements and the properties set on them. It will be smaller
and faster to load than XAML since we have pre-
>determined which class each tag maps.
>With BAML we are doing more than just size reduction, we are trying to do
some costly operations during the compile step -
>so we get better runtime performance.
So on the one hand, we have someone telling us the XML binary isn't a
good idea for interop; on the other, we have a rich application client
language developer telling us that is precisely what is intended. Is
this a fiefdom issue, or would we expect BAML to emerge as the MS
choice for binary XML? I'm not after MS's throat here; I simply am
trying to show why it is so difficult to take the MS presentation
at the binary workshop seriously. In the rich client 3D world,
we already take the need for the binary seriously. It is simply
a question of generality. So far, all I see emerging as a consensus
is 'the need depends on the application'.