OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Why XML for Messaging?

[ 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.


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>


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS