Lists Home |
Date Index |
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> From: Michael Rys [mailto:email@example.com]
>>[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.
> 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.
I don't see the conflict. Not every use of XML involves interop. Lots of
apps use XML internally as a convenient way to store configuration
information or serialize object graphs. Based on my (admittedly scant)
understanding of XAML, I wouldn't consider running a rich client app
based on XAML to be an example of interop. Why you think it would be
beneficial for BAML to be encoded using a binary XML standard?
As I understand Microsoft's (and a lot of other peoples's) position, it
is that "binary XML" is fine for those non-interop use cases, but you
shouldn't expect that a single binary format will meet every app's
requirements. OTOH, if you are using XML for interop, then you ought to
be using XML-as-marked-up-text as described in the XML Recommendation as
the single XML standard.