[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Claude L Bullard wrote:
> would we expect BAML to emerge as the MS choice
> for binary XML?
Is Microsoft's BAML compatible with the binary format for XML
that they use in SQL 2000, etc.? Are these two the *only* binary
formats for XML that Microsoft is using or developing? Are there
others as well?
Joshua Allen of Microsoft wrote on 11/18/2003:
> MSFT has been shipping a parse-speed-optimized binary
> format for XML since SQL 2000 shipped, so it is not as
> if MSFT is totally opposed to native binary encoding of XML.
In the Longhorn documentation it says:
> "binary XAML (BAML). BAML is far more compact than
> either the original text file or a compiled-to-IL assembly.
> BAML files download more quickly -- are optimized for download"
Why are these binary formats so good for Microsoft yet not
good for the rest of us? What is so special about these formats that
some standardized format can't be accepted?
bob wyman
|
