Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Nov 22, 2004, at 3:48 PM, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>> Michael Champion wrote:
>>> The 'binary XML' stuff got a lot less hostile reception than I
>>> expected. Is the world ready to hear that XML 1.x text serialization
>>> is not suitable for wireless applications, is this old news, or what?
>> during a recent presentation I tried to outrage the audience with
>> some over-the-top pro-binary XML positions (expecting to use the
>> push-back to moderate them)
> And in Mike's talk, he did not do this. He put everything I had heard
> context, including counter-arguments to the various arguments, so
> there was
> little reason to get hostile.
Indeed, Mike's presentation was superlative. He's survey of the
current state of the art was very accurate in my opinion.
> For example, there was his point (whether his
> own or quoting of other people) that just because XML doesn't suit a
> particular class of applications well doesn't necessarily mean that XML
> should be twisted inside out to accommodate that class of apps;
> perhaps it
> means that that class of apps should look elsewhere for its needs.
"twisted inside out" is a bit of an exaggeration. I don't think anyone
is trying to do that. First, the point is to provide an alternate
serialization (not to replace XML) in a way that minimizes the impact
on the applications. Second, multiple serializations are available for
other formats (images, videos, music, etc.) and people have been able
to use the ones that are more appropriate in each context.
> When someone prototypes an encoding that is orders of magnitude more
> efficient for arbitrary XML, which Mike said that no one had done yet,
> more seriously consider the possibility that a binary XML standard
> might be
> worth the trouble.
That is a fair requirement. However, not everyone has set the bar so
high; for many, a speed up measured in times and not magnitudes is more
This is a digitally signed message part