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 agree with that, Jim.  We are delineating cases.  But we need 
to be sure that:

1.  XAML is not an over the wire format, or ever intended to be 
submitted as a standard.  Remember, with the binary, it is two 
encodings.  So depending on how one defines interop, we do get 
two encodings.

2.  That we can live with multiple similar rich client languages 
for similar application types (eg, XAML, XUL, and whatever the 
inevitable anythingButMicrosoft cabal develops).  We have before. 
Competition can be good.

I'm not in favor of premature standards or standards where none 
are needed yet.  Just don't be cherry about what happens to markets 
we have to share if one doesn't want to be thralled.  I like the 
XAML design.  I realize it needs a binary (I worked the MID 
project and already had to skin this bear).  I am trying to separate 
the requirements into boxes that will make sense to me.  So far:

o  A single binary standard for all XML applications is a

o  Multiple binaries for multiple designs of application 
language types are likely.

o  Standards may follow later.  Meanwhile, don't try to use 
the XAML, XUL, whatever client in the same way we use HTML.
True with or without the binary but an overlap because true 
of the binary too.


From: Jim Ancona [mailto:jim@anconafamily.com]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> From: Michael Rys [mailto:mrys@microsoft.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.



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

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