[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> but when the question of
> 'why XML' comes up, the answers are reduced to 'because it
> is there'.
The fact that we now have a universal data format that developer's can
just assume will always be there is pretty damn compelling. Perhaps it
can only really be appreciated if you've lived through other bridges:
com/corba
usenet/email
rfc822 and mime/x.400
sna / tcp/ip
iso (GOSIP, anyone?) / tcp/ip
archie, gopher / http
> Indeed, when a binary XML as an alternative is proposed and
> solutions are documented, the WG is asked to jump through
> hoops not asked of any other working group.
I completely disagree with this characterization. When the XBC WG said
"we want to provide an alternative to now-universal serialization", the
TAG said "show us the numbers." BTW, the TAG doesn't make policy
decisions like what WG to create. Right now, you can take any
XML-generating application and feed its output into any XML-consuming
toolkit. We'd be fools to give that up without having concrete proof
that it'd be worth it.
/r$
--
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
|
