OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Micros

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • To: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
  • Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
  • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
  • Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:28:01 -0800
  • Thread-index: AcOzgdtsf/hcSN42S8q0+fb9aI/f7w==
  • Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)

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'.

Is it misrepresent Microsoft's position on binary XML month? Despite submissions of position papers, numerous mailings to XML-DEV and weblog posts it seems every other mail on XML-DEV about binary XML (or article on XML.com) is about completely misrepresenting our position. 
Our position has been consistent and it has been clear. Different applications have different optimization requirements and thus it is unlikely that a single binary XML standard will satisfy all scenarios (we're pretty sure it won't satisfy all the scenarios of the various individual Microsoft products) given that in some cases they are conflicting. Even it was the case that a single binary XML standard could somehow satisfy all scenarios and not end up turning into something like W3C XML Schema there is still the fact that this poisons the well with regards to the interoperability of XML on the Web. Given both these points we are against standardizing on binary XML format(s). 
Nothing in the above argument precludes applications from having optimized representations of XML for their local needs. Does the fact that Microsoft Word can accept WordprocessingML and .doc files somehow mean that .doc files should be the basis of building a binary XML standard or that you suspect .doc files will emerge as Microsoft's choice for binary XML (whatever that means)? 
I fail to see where the inconsistency in the Microsoft position arises. Len maybe you can explain to me why you fail to take our position seriously?  


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS