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 ]

That's a much clearer statement.  Thanks.  Again, 
it is a deadly embrace if the bit about 'not for 
interchange' to which I add 'and has no lifecycle' 
isn't explicitly made clear.

I know the reasons.  I know what the solutions are. 
Getting the RFPs to be as clear is the challenge.


From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@gmail.com]

On 6/2/05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:
> Because Sun goes to the trouble of getting an
> international standard for it.  Microsoft is
> fighting that idea.

Fastinfoset *is* an international standard 
ITU-T Rec. X.891 | ISO/IEC 24824-1  is it not????  What would W3C
saying that this telecomunications standard is a Recommendation for
all XML use cases add to anyone's bottom line?

> "Paoli's passion for XML and documents shined through the entire talk,
> especially two of the final points. He spoke out against binary XML,
> 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.

I'm not sure what Jean said in Amsterdam, but I was involved in
briefing him on the MS internal consensus about binary XML.  We (and
Sun, IBM, Oracle, etc.) use binary XML for a number of internal
purposes. Some companies seem to have hammered out an internal
consensus that something marginally smaller and faster than XML is
good enough to be an internal standard and possibly a generic W3C
Recommendation.  We think that that defeats both the point of binary
XML (optimization for specific purposes when interchange is not a
consideration) and textual XML (universal support for generic purposes
when interchange is the primary consideration). MS has invested 7-8
years in getting XML 1.0 on every desktop and server; it's time to
exploit the benefits that brings, not add yet another dimension to the
interop complexity space. That's Microsoft's "tactic" in opposing
binary XML standardization ... and XML 1.1, XSD 1.1, use case-specific
profiles of XSD, etc.


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

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