Lists Home |
Date Index |
It's a fair question. Lots of technologists and
marketing types have been drafting on XML since it
became successful, but this really is a request from
parts of the XML community to create a faster format
that XML systems can use. Reasons differ, mostly
they are the "need for speed", but also some want
to obscure the content from prying eyes and are not
bothered by arguments that say any thing can be
reverse-engineered. There are customers who resent
view source prying and for good reasons. No, this
is not the best means to stop that but it helps like
that almost worthless bolt lock people use on their
doors that anyone with a little determination can
overcome. The difference is the number of people
who are really determined and able vs those that
just want to do a bit light burglary.
From: Rick Marshall [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
i don't understand at all why we have to have binary or optimised xml.
it just seems to me that if what you want is eg asn that use it. if you
want xml, use it. if your application can benefit from transforming xml
to asn or using asn with it's "xml" extensions, then use a translator.
why not let xml do its job and asn and others do theirs? i canlive with
importing and exporting data from data bases when and as it seems
sensible to use xml for representation and databases for storage and i'm
not convinced (probably never will be) that there's any advantage in
confusing rather than using standards and technologies.
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 23:43, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Well, actually I mean the idea of calling something
> XML that clearly isn't. The spinning of the 'what
> is XML' thread doesn't impress me much. I agree
> with Elliotte. The spec tells us exactly what
> XML is.
> People who want to do things that experience has
> shown are short-sighted are sometimes called innovators
> while their critics are labeled Luddites or Sabots.
> After the innovators do their damage, it is a little late
> to hit them with shoes. We really do need to know
> if a binary is something only some applications need,
> and therefore, a generalized spec and standard are
> not required. Once a binary is approved for
> all XML applications, XML will rarely be seen
> as the programmers rush for the binary format for
> the same reason countries fear they will be second
> class without nukes.
> My problem with the current thread is that it is
> designing a binary ahead of making that determination.
> The case is made for some applications using a binary.
> The case is not made for it being generalized.
> From: Rick Marshall [mailto:email@example.com]
> On Fri, 2004-04-09 at 23:50, Robin Berjon wrote:
> > Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> > > References to 'optimized XML' without a clear
> > > set of definitions for this. The slippery slope
> > > is evident.
> > That's why there's a WG about it :)
> i think len means the wg is the slippery slope. i certainly suspect it