- From: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:20:12 -0500
- To: Mike Champion <mike.champion@softwareag-usa.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Mike: I think you have written a wonderful and balanced summary. One comment (as much to Chris as to you): Chris' summary says [1]: "The primary reason that people give for using Binary XML (binary representations of an XML Infoset) is size efficiency - both in network transmission and in storage on the receiving device." Actually, in the Web Services area, I've heard at least as much interest attributed to (perceived) improvements in serialization/parsing/deserialization time. Remember, some of these web services deployments are attempting to displace systems in which you read in the C structure off the wire, set a pointer to it, and go (assuming byte order, security, and versioning aren't issues.) As a somewhat extreme point of comparison, you wouldn't for most purposes want to represent an IP packet in a format with variable offsets, allowed whitespace, etc. IP packets aren't the subject of discussion here, but many of the existing protocols have similar characteristics. I'm not particularly an advocate for binary XML at this point, but I agree with Mike that we need an orderly cost/benefit analysis, and pathlength is at least as much a concern as space in certain environments. Thank you. Noah [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 14:25:12 UTC