RE: [xml-dev] Article on nytimes.com about Microsoft

[Len Bullard <len.bullard@uai.com>]

Amen to that.   For the tech that MS shows no interest in (e.g., the 3D
virtual world technologies), FI has a definite use and is already part of
the ISO standard as Alexander points out.   As a .Net developer and an
active participant in Web3DC discussions, there is interest in developing
other applications of real-time 3D using the MS framework and technologies
such as SQL Server.  One of these is in a market MS has professed support
for:  NIMS.   NIMS is not the kind of market where one vendor can dominate
or would want to if they understand the implications of that.  Application
interoperability is fundamental to the success of the initiative which is
understood as vital to the safety and security of our cities and citizens.  

.Net and the Visual Studio development platforms for all the quirks are
still the best platform for doing this work.   IMO, Alex is offering very
good advice.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Philippou [mailto:alex@noemax.com] 
 
Michael Champion wrote:
> If performance/scalability/bandwidth conservation is the primary value 
> to consider, use whatever technology your platform offers that is 
> optimized for the application scenario you have.  For web services on 
> .NET, that's WCF's format.

No, Fast Infoset is considerably more compact than WCF's format (again see
http://www.noemax.com/products/fastinfoset/size_comparisons.html) so FI is a
better choice for improving WS performance. And it conforms to an ISO/ITU-T
standard, and can be used with any WCF transport (Http, NetTcp, Soap/Tcp),
and is interoperable with Java and other platforms. IMO for anyone willing
to spend some $ to buy a component it makes much more sense to use FI
instead of WCF's format.

> I do know that we don't consider the WCF wire format a rival to FI or 
> EXI in interop scenarios.  We do want to make .NET the best platform 
> on which to develop and deploy web services, but XML parsing 
> efficiency is a small part of that, and the framework can easily 
> support FI or EXI if one of them emerges as an interoperability 
> standard.

FI not being shipped within .NET does not reduce the fact that FI actually
is supported as an integral part of the framework. .NET is exactly that -- a
framework -- and as such it is open to new technologies being plugged into
it without forcing them on MS. Maybe it would be simpler for MS to just
encourage and assist other vendors to provide additional technologies for
.NET. This would relieve MS from standards fighting and would also help .NET
move forward faster.

Alexander


_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.