[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I want to mainly emphasize some points from Michael Champion's response.
The W3C XML-Binary group is *not* coming up with a binary format, but
rather characterizing what's important for such a format if created.
BTW, there's also the Sun-initiated ISO effort (X.fws, fast web
services) and various research efforts around, too.
The "network device" approach is increasingly being seen as a reasonable
architecture. We make such devices, so I'm biased. But 12-24 months
ago you'd have to do a real "sell job" to talk to folks about "XML in
the network." But now it's rare that it's not already on someone's
architecture list. (This is for, say, Fortune 1000 or similar, with
departments devoted to Enterprise Computing Architecture or some such.)
One interesting things about client/server XML is that the computing
load is asymmetric. It's a heck of a lot easier to generate XML than it
is to consume and process it. Your note didn't seem to take that into
account.
/r$
--
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
|
