If I
open esYourML in a text editor, can I read it? That's all the view source
issue amounts to.
Probably not unless the 'uncompress' code is invoked as it is for gzip
when X3D uses that.
No,
X3D definitely needs more than zipping because that we have.
Some
believe a binary helps with the view source problem. Others
know it doesn't much.
Also,
because the range of XML applications from real documents to message payloads
gets a
different amount of inspection (I can't envision too many people view sourcing a
SOAP
message but lots of them view source X3D, HTML, etc. to acquire techniques),
the
requirements for this one problem can be different.
The
problem with the esXML approach so far is that is breaks the widely held
contract of
well-formedness and substitutes asNeeded well-formedness
checking. While a good idea where
there
is a lot of control, is that acceptable for the kinds of blind
exchanges that the
web at
large requires? So again, it's not a one-size-fits-all and at this
point, I am
interested in the question I posed, do we really need a general
solution? I don't
expect
an answer here but I expect that question to stay at the front of the WG
agenda
because otherwise, the rush to design and implement will overcome the
more
fundamental ecosystem questions of adding new formats when existing
formats may be good enough. Just as some don't want to add new
addressing
systems, some don't want yetAnotherFlash. The need for
speed may not
justify all of the effort required to get a new format into a world wide
federated
system
of systems.
Again,
I am pruning the CC lists.
len
esXML does
not obscure anything as all information for XML 1.1 equivalence is in its
self-describing format to be 'uncompressed' by any version of the
library. If you are exchanging deltas, a man-in-the-middle might not
have access to the parent, but that's not real obscurity.
The new
formats, as we've discussed, are about efficiency of one or more types, and
explicity not only size efficiency. Schema-based approaches do tend to
obscure, but self-describing formats like esXML and apparently finf, do not
beyond the need to uncompress to text. This is not totoally unlike
needing to ungzip.
sdw
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
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.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Marshall [mailto:rjm@zenucom.com]
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.
rick
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.
len
From: Rick Marshall [mailto:rjm@zenucom.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
is
rick
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
--
swilliams@hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Personal: sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
