[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusy Harold wrote:
> All things are fuzzy to some extent, but XML is far
> less fuzzy than most. There is a reasonably
> well-written specification that defines precisely
> what is and is not XML.
Can we stop arguing about whether a binary alternative to XML
is, can, or should be called "XML"? The case has been made over and
over again that if it ain't pointy brackets and all the other stuff in
the XML specifications, then it ain't XML! Personally, I believe that
the qualified "binary XML" should be enough to show the distinction,
but that gets so many people upset that it just isn't worth the
effort. Let's put naming aside and deal with the real issue: A
significant number of people could benefit from having something
similar in concept to, but not exactly like, XML as it is defined.
The interesting question isn't "What is this thing called?"
but rather, "What should someone use if they need something other than
what XML provides yet want to remain as compatible as possible with
XML, XML-processing tools, etc?" The most desirable answer to this
question would be one that identifies one or a small number of
alternatives and clearly defines the use-cases in which the
alternative is appropriate as well as the practices that ensure that
interop with XML based systems is not compromised...
bob wyman
|
