[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
This assumes that "XML" refers to the serialization format alone. For
most of us, XML refers to the whole spectrum of things XML, from XQuery
to XML Schemas to DOM trees. The fact is that binary XML seeks to
exploit all of these things except the serialization format.
While there is a real worry about the balkanization of exchange formats,
the reuse of common document models, query languages, schema languages,
and so on seems to be Good Thing, as it allows all of these technologies
to be reused.
For me one of the most interesting posts to xml-dev in the recent past
was the use of XPath in the UNIX find utility. On the one hand, this has
nothing to do with XML. On the other hand, it's a pretty nice reuse of
technology that came out of XML in a non-XML environment. It is
particularly easy to imagine XML query languages being used in any
number of such non-XML environments, especially when it is easy to
define a simple, canonical mapping from those environments to XML, as
was done in the find case.
-- Ron
Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>
>
>> All of them? I'm (not so) sorry but without a little more prose here
>> that's still hand-waving and quite FUDish, if not just plainly,
>> simply, obviously wrong. There's a bunch of binary file formats out
>> there that I like as binary thank-you-very-much.
>>
>
> The point is XML. I assumed everyone realized that on the xml-dev
> mailing list we're talking about XML, but if that isn't clear let me
> restate.
>
> Binary file formats that call themselves XML, binary encodings of the
> XML infoset, and the like, are broken and actively damaging to the XML
> community.
>
> If some data requires a binary encoding for some reason, as some data
> does, then it should not be encoded in XML, or anything that pretends to
> be XML.
|
