Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Elliotte Rusy Harold wrote: > All things are fuzzy to some extent, but XML is far > less fuzzy than most. There is a reasonably > well-written specification that defines precisely > what is and is not XML. Can we stop arguing about whether a binary alternative to XML is, can, or should be called "XML"? The case has been made over and over again that if it ain't pointy brackets and all the other stuff in the XML specifications, then it ain't XML! Personally, I believe that the qualified "binary XML" should be enough to show the distinction, but that gets so many people upset that it just isn't worth the effort. Let's put naming aside and deal with the real issue: A significant number of people could benefit from having something similar in concept to, but not exactly like, XML as it is defined. The interesting question isn't "What is this thing called?" but rather, "What should someone use if they need something other than what XML provides yet want to remain as compatible as possible with XML, XML-processing tools, etc?" The most desirable answer to this question would be one that identifies one or a small number of alternatives and clearly defines the use-cases in which the alternative is appropriate as well as the practices that ensure that interop with XML based systems is not compromised... bob wyman
|
