Lists Home |
Date 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:email@example.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