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 ]

I'm trying to work it out in short concise statements.  This is 
getting closer and thanks for taking the time to reply.  I agree 
with most of that, but you have to see the implications.

1.  No binary will work well enough for all applications to 
make it worth standardizing on one.

2.  Binaries do work well for given applications and they are 
being developed.  This means that any one saying that binaries 
are bad because they bifurcate the interop problem are being 
a bit ingenuous.  They will bifurcate the interop of formats 
on the web per application type.  That will happen, and now 
it is a horse race or ye olde colonization scenario.

NOTE: I'm not misrepresenting the MS position here.  ALL of 
the major vendors are engaged in this.

Now it comes down to the question I asked Liam.  What will 
the outcome be of the perception that some entity, say the 
W3C, should control the development of these?

It is undeniable that development is happening.  All of the 
players are honest about that.  In the case of X3D, the 
W3DC published an RFP for one so that it would become 
the third encoding in the standard.  It doesn't get more 
straight up than that.

What will be the result of having a binary of XAML and a binary 
for SQL Server?  No big whoop because these can be said to 
be in their own application space.  But when there is a binary 
for XAML and XUL and SQL Server and Oracle, now interop is 
being compromised and the content on the web is balkanizing.

Simply be clear about what 'local' means.  If XAML only runs 
on the MS desktop, and is not an on-the-wire format, ok. But 
if we are expected to use it on any other desktop OR must 
serve it out of an Oracle database, that may not be ok.  At 
least in the case of X3D, the consortium is developing ONE 
for all its members to use PER application type (X3D).

Is that clearer?


From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@microsoft.com]

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
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?  

The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>


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

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