W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

Re: [binaryXML-30] Binary XML problem statement.

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
Message-ID: <OFC643BD21.65B21E1F-ON85256CD2.0069CB35@lotus.com>

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.


[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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:37 UTC