• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:12:25 -0500
• In-reply-to: <50908277-1FBF-11D8-BE4C-000A95A51C9E@t...>

tbray@t... (Tim Bray) writes:
>.... with the most significant difference between XML and the other 
>options being the copious availability of good free software for many 
>language/platform combinations XML.  As long as this difference 
>obtains, these endless discussions of the relative benefits of XML and 
>ASN.1, or the utility of ASN.1 as a transfer format, will remain 
>profoundly uninteresting.

The reverse of this is important as well:

Much of the use of XML in the world can be attributed to the existence
of a large and cheap toolset, not to XML's natural applicability to the
problems being solved.

I'd like to see a few more better mousetraps get going.

• References:
  • Re: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Parsing XML with special characters (Perl XML::Parser)
• Next by Date: Re: Parsing XML with special characters (Perl XML::Parser)
• Previous by thread: Re: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• Next by thread: RE: Is there a use for standardized binary XML (was RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread