Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > From: Michael Rys [mailto:mrys@m...] > > >>[Michael Rys] I think that every fiefdom can use whatever currency and >>language they want to use. But if you want to simplify interop, you >>should standardize one currency and one language, one measurement system >>etc and not have two. <snip/> > > So on the one hand, we have someone telling us the XML binary isn't a > good idea for interop; on the other, we have a rich application client > language developer telling us that is precisely what is intended. I don't see the conflict. Not every use of XML involves interop. Lots of apps use XML internally as a convenient way to store configuration information or serialize object graphs. Based on my (admittedly scant) understanding of XAML, I wouldn't consider running a rich client app based on XAML to be an example of interop. Why you think it would be beneficial for BAML to be encoded using a binary XML standard? As I understand Microsoft's (and a lot of other peoples's) position, it is that "binary XML" is fine for those non-interop use cases, but you shouldn't expect that a single binary format will meet every app's requirements. OTOH, if you are using XML for interop, then you ought to be using XML-as-marked-up-text as described in the XML Recommendation as the single XML standard. Jim
|
