Re: Andrew Layman and Don Box Analysis of XML Optimization Techni ques

* noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
>My concern is that Binary XML is disruptive in another less positive 
>sense.  Part of the value of XML is its nearly universal interoperability. 

That's an interesting "XML" then. Does it include XML 1.1?

> XML data can be repurposed over and over again, sometimes for uses not 
>originally anticipated.  You can take most any XML and read it into Excel, 
>import it into a variety of databases, transform it with widely available 
>XSL tools, etc.  While in principle one could re-release all the software 
>that's already out there to include new drivers for binary XML, in 
>practice there will for years be software that only understands the text 
>form.  Even if binary is successful, we will bear for the indefinite 
>future the cost of conversion between the two, e.g. when editing in Emacs 
>is desired.  So, there is a downside.

How are XML documents such as http://www.w3.org/2003/02/W3COrg.svgz and
binary XML different in this regard?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 20:40:19 UTC