Lists Home |
Date Index |
Since I replied to Dare on most of these points, I'll snip the
parts I agree with.
From: Michael Rys [mailto:email@example.com]
[Michael Rys] Not quite. Most areas that you see some form of binary XML
emerge (inside and outside of Microsoft) are normally tightly-coupled
applications. My and Dare's point is that you should not expose the
binary XML at the general interop level. If you want to expose the
binary format as an additional format, then your application and whoever
wants to talk to you will have to deal with the added complexity. But we
should not define a binary format as the W3C-blessed binary interop
format. Because this in the end will lead to some areas to claim XML
conformance while never-ever dealing with XML proper (would be kind of
like MS saying, Word's .doc format is just XML).
[len] There seem to be two trains of thought:
1. Binaries exposed will lead to complexity. As long as that
is tightly coupled to the platform (XAML for MS, XUL for something
else, whatever for whatever else), the complexity is contained
to each platform. One has to choose one and stick to it. Ok
inside the firewall, but a problem outside it.
2. A single binary won't work. We agree. Claiming conformance
to one will lead to proof of conformance issues. On the other hand,
that is true of any binary for any application, isn't it? The
problem is having multiple client applications if these have to
interoperate across platforms and more complex if over the wire
because one can't predict the platform.
> 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.
>[Michael Rys] Only if people are going to start defining interop on this
>level. Which will (hopefully) not happen if we have that many different
>formats, since XML is the one format that is defined as the
>"interoperable standard format". See it as a divide and conquer strategy
>that attempts to work in favor of the XML standard.
Again, true of XML itself, the syntax. Not true where there are
multiple XML application languages for rich clients.
>Michael Rys] If, OTOH, the W3C defines 5 or 6 binary "standard" format,
>we certainly will get balkanization, since people will abandon XML and
>tie themselves to one or two of the binary format (since it is now a
If they do that for one application type, yes. If there is one
binary per application type, no. What we seem to be heading for
is a situation where the multiple application languages per
application types are causing that, and the binaries just
add to the problem.
[Michael Rys] Is my reply clearer?
Yes. I think I understand the position. Application level interop and
pure XML interop (the syntax thing) most, I think will agree, are
very different levels of interoperation.