Lists Home |
Date Index |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 12:09
> To: 'Elliotte Rusty Harold'
> Cc: xml-dev
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] The Rising Sun: How XML Binary
> Restored the Fortune s of Innovators
> It isn't security. It is inscrutability. They don't buy into "View
> They hate it. I don't think it's a good reason either
> because like many,
> I learn from view source, but when you spend as much as these
> guys do on
> content production, I guess you look for every possible way
> to maintain
> a window of opportunity. Can you open and inspect a Flash
> file? (I don't
> know really; I don't make Flash files.)
I was wondering... If there were a viewer available for Fast Infoset,
something that displayed a FI document (say, like the Microsoft IE builtin
XML 1.0 viewer does), would that comply with the "view source" paradigm?
I'd say yes. (FI can easily be rendered as XML 1.0 on the fly.)
What is the profound difference between the act of displaying an XML 1.0
document using the Microsoft XML 1.0 viewer and the act of displaying a FI
document using a FI viewer that produces a display that looks exactly the
same as the former?
Of course, XML 1.0 is XML 1.0 and Fast Infoset is Fast Infoset -- the main
thing they have in common is that both can be properly used to serialize an
XML infoset. But my question relates specifically to the "view source"
paradigm and to the **rendering** of the underlying byte stream done by the
MS XML 1.0 viewer that is built into IE.
True, with XML 1.0 you can use any Unicode viewer (or any EBCDIC viewer, or
any SHIFT_JIS viewer, or any xyz viewer, etc., depending on the
circumstances) -- you don't have to use a specific program like the MS XML
1.0 viewer that is built into IE. But still, if FI viewers became
ubiquitous, what would be the fundamental reason for concluding that FI does
not comply with the "view source" paradigm?
Is this whole issue just a matter of widespread availability of viewers?
> You have to argue with the game and computer-aided design
> vendors, Rusty.
> The situation is that they get what they demand and if the W3C doesn't
> that's ok, but the W3DC has to because these are their
> members with their
> own perceptions and business models. The W3DC liases with
> the W3C and
> as much as it can, tries to keep its standards consistent
> with those from
> the W3C, but at the end of the day, it creates ISO standards which is
> another reason to use FI.