[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@intergraph.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 10:42 AM
> To: 'Dare Obasanjo'
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Why XML for Messaging?
>
> Because Sun goes to the trouble of getting an international
> standard for it. Microsoft is fighting that idea.
I thought there was a deal in April 2004.
Joe
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com
> "Paoli's passion for XML and documents shined through the
> entire talk, especially two of the final points. He spoke out
> against binary XML, simply saying "No, please," and concluded
> with a prediction: In 2010 75% of new documents worldwide
> will be created in XML."
> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/06/01/deviant.html
>
> The business models of the customers prefer standards.
> Paoli's tactic ultimately means no binaries unless they are
> Microsoft-framework supported.
> Yes, we can do what you suggest. Why bother?
> We can do that with FastInfoset and be both standard and
> indemnified. Note that this isn't just Microsoft. IBM is
> fighting it, the XML community is fighting it, everyone I
> suspect but the graphics folks and other performance bound
> implementors.
>
> Using big vendor frameworks in situations like this is like
> dating a vampire: the vampire is sophisticated, rich, slick,
> and hey it can fly but just before the light begins to dawn
> on you, it puts the bite on you and now you too have to live
> in the shadows.
>
> My advice to the middle tier vendors: instead of accepting
> the vampire's embrace, implement the most framework and
> platform independent means you have even if that means
> returning to C and C++ and taking on the costs of creating
> libraries. The short term productivity benefits of using the
> frameworks are becoming riskier.
> The independence that XML provided is being replaced by
> dependence on the libraries and this is far riskier to your
> marketshare as it enables the platform provider to invade and
> possess your market while you can't guarantee
> performance. Don't give up your
> power to negotiate which is ultimately your willingness to
> walk away from the table.
>
> len
>
> (also speaking solely for myself and not my employer)
>
>
> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@microsoft.com]
>
> > Because where one wants to use XML machinery without XML
> > syntax on the wire, one has to have the infrastructure and if
> > that means getting it from Sun, so be it. MS doesn't get to
> > play in that market.
>
> Then we are now in the infoset permathread. Sure anyone can come up
> with a framework that enables passing around binary representations of
> XML. APIs like SAX and the .NET Framework's XmlReader can be
> implemented
> over binary streams as well as text XML.
>
> I'm not sure where the idea that this is technology exclusive
> to Sun and
> not Microsoft comes from. Can you clarify?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
|
