[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Harold wrote:
> 1. Patents are beginning to invade this space, closing off
> interoperability and open software.
That would seem to point to a RF standards consortium.
> 2. The data that's transmitted in this binary format is less inspectable
> than data in the regular XML format.
Yes, but that's the sort of trade-off one has to make in some cases.
> 3. Software vendors will publish tools that only consume the binary
> data; and therefore systems will refuse to accept the textual data.
I strongly doubt that, except at the edge where consuming textual data
isn't an option. It's not the experience I've had so far (others may
have different experiences).
> 4. Binary parsers often forgo well-formedness checks such as name
> characters that textual parsers make. They incorrectly assume that
> nobody can or will inject broken data into the system.
That, again, depends on the format.
> These problems are not insurmountable, but once you surmount them you're
> very close to reinventing real XML, and being about as fast and maybe
> marginally slower.
Yes, you're very close to reinventing XML, but faster and smaller :)
--
Robin Berjon
Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
|
