[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Robin Berjon wrote:
> Well no one's calling binary XML, XML. People are putting the "XML" in
> there to indicate it has a very strong relationship to the sort of stuff
> that one finds in XML. It's semantic, not branding, not adoption. In
> fact, a careful analysis of what people want in a more efficient binary
> format yields a list that pretty much well defines XML itself, with
> compactness and speed being the two additions.
It is branding. Binary formats are not XML and they're not going to be,
unless the W3C either gets bullied into redefining "XML' or stupidly
decides to go along with the cooption.
This is like calling a Patagonian tooth fish a Chilean sea bass to fool
people into eating it, even though everyone who knows anything about the
fish knows it's not a sea bass. The result, in this case, is the
extinction of the species. I just hope "binary XML" doesn't cause the
extinction of real XML.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
|
