[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Harold wrote:
> 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,
It would be branding if we were in a situations in which vendors came up
with something that the customers didn't want, and branded it to sell it
(as in your fish example). Here what we have is people asking for
something, tagging the name that seemed to roughly fit best onto it, and
only /then/ vendors providing it.
Do you really think anyone would be stupid enough to call something
"binary XML" if they had branding in mind? It's not like the debate's
new... If I'd tried to brand it I'd have called it XGoop or something
like that. In fact *anything* that avoided the words "binary" and "XML"
within memory range of any readership. But the users voted with their
feet already.
> unless the W3C either gets bullied into redefining "XML' or stupidly
> decides to go along with the cooption.
Ooh, now we have bullies! It's a nice cast you got yourself there, maybe
you should sell the rights to Tarantino?
--
Robin Berjon
Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
|
