Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Elliotte Harold wrote: > 1. Patents are beginning to invade this space, closing off > interoperability and open software. That would seem to point to a RF standards consortium. > 2. The data that's transmitted in this binary format is less inspectable > than data in the regular XML format. Yes, but that's the sort of trade-off one has to make in some cases. > 3. Software vendors will publish tools that only consume the binary > data; and therefore systems will refuse to accept the textual data. I strongly doubt that, except at the edge where consuming textual data isn't an option. It's not the experience I've had so far (others may have different experiences). > 4. Binary parsers often forgo well-formedness checks such as name > characters that textual parsers make. They incorrectly assume that > nobody can or will inject broken data into the system. That, again, depends on the format. > These problems are not insurmountable, but once you surmount them you're > very close to reinventing real XML, and being about as fast and maybe > marginally slower. Yes, you're very close to reinventing XML, but faster and smaller :) -- Robin Berjon Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
|
