• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Subject: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• From: Kent Tegels <ktegels@g...>
• Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:26:13 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=cLd+8x95csjsnOWdB+g6GU1Z0WdQDIKbI8+7wcC1c7mFnxsvQrGHzu1wGAqUmznvS/1vtt8MHNNv2nXpKLL72IpR65tJkz6x2Qxh2Bei5ay9FUSBDt9MUkSIdzL228NO4ZVGcD7yZhsc1j6bZFHEeYzjejO8JRG/Lf2IohcblLE=
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206FA3@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206FA3@h...>
• Reply-to: ktegels@d...

> and other nits are elaborated, but at the end, the same
> answer 'because it is there' or 'there are no attractive
> alternatives' are given.  Laziness or just momentum?

"There are no attractive alternatives" holds most true, I suspect.
Laziness maybe of folks to come up with something thats actually
better, if anything.

>That XML will be replaced eventually
> is almost certain given it's inefficiencies for this
> particular application. 

How about "the *use* of XML will be replaced eventually..." XML is
about far more than messaging.

> o  A simpler XML?

Other than schema, could it get much simplier, really?

> o  A smarter XML?

That I agree with.

> o  Binary XML

And that's more simple?

> o  Objects

Wait, I thought this was a conversation about messaging, not about
sending serialized object graphs. You'd do one or the other, not both.

At least I would. Others would too.

Thanks!
Kent Tegels
DevelopMentor
Blog: http://staff.develop.com/ktegels

• References:
  • Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by Date: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Previous by thread: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by thread: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread