• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004weblog items?)
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:02:40 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D102767165@R...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D102767165@R...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Macintosh/20041103)

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> Why would an industry specific XML binary format eventually creep
> onto the Web without a push from the W3C or similar "standards
> organization"? We already have standardized "binary XML" formats like
> WBXML & BiM and I haven't seen a push to replace serving RSS feeds
> with XML 1.0 (for example).

It all depends on the industry, and its current and upcoming states and 
technologies. If the Mutant Squirrels industry standardizes on a binary 
format to exchange Nut DNA information it sure ain't likely to leek onto 
the Web. Likewise, neither WAP content nor AV metadata (BiM's historical 
target) were ever going to be Web darlings.

But when you start talking about SVG, mobile Web Services, mobile 
metadata systems... you're talking core Web technology. There's no 
intent in keeping the Mobile and Desktop Webs artificially separated.

I'm not playing doom'n'gloom here, just suggesting there's value in 
taking a step back and weighing in the risks that lie down both paths.

-- 
Robin Berjon

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
    • From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Next by Date: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Previous by thread: RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Next by thread: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread