Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@i...] > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 10:42 AM > To: 'Dare Obasanjo' > Cc: xml-dev@l... > Subject: RE: Why XML for Messaging? > > Because Sun goes to the trouble of getting an international > standard for it. Microsoft is fighting that idea. I thought there was a deal in April 2004. Joe Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton Visit us online@ http://www.boozallen.com > "Paoli's passion for XML and documents shined through the > entire talk, especially two of the final points. He spoke out > against binary XML, simply saying "No, please," and concluded > with a prediction: In 2010 75% of new documents worldwide > will be created in XML." > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/06/01/deviant.html > > The business models of the customers prefer standards. > Paoli's tactic ultimately means no binaries unless they are > Microsoft-framework supported. > Yes, we can do what you suggest. Why bother? > We can do that with FastInfoset and be both standard and > indemnified. Note that this isn't just Microsoft. IBM is > fighting it, the XML community is fighting it, everyone I > suspect but the graphics folks and other performance bound > implementors. > > Using big vendor frameworks in situations like this is like > dating a vampire: the vampire is sophisticated, rich, slick, > and hey it can fly but just before the light begins to dawn > on you, it puts the bite on you and now you too have to live > in the shadows. > > My advice to the middle tier vendors: instead of accepting > the vampire's embrace, implement the most framework and > platform independent means you have even if that means > returning to C and C++ and taking on the costs of creating > libraries. The short term productivity benefits of using the > frameworks are becoming riskier. > The independence that XML provided is being replaced by > dependence on the libraries and this is far riskier to your > marketshare as it enables the platform provider to invade and > possess your market while you can't guarantee > performance. Don't give up your > power to negotiate which is ultimately your willingness to > walk away from the table. > > len > > (also speaking solely for myself and not my employer) > > > From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...] > > > Because where one wants to use XML machinery without XML > > syntax on the wire, one has to have the infrastructure and if > > that means getting it from Sun, so be it. MS doesn't get to > > play in that market. > > Then we are now in the infoset permathread. Sure anyone can come up > with a framework that enables passing around binary representations of > XML. APIs like SAX and the .NET Framework's XmlReader can be > implemented > over binary streams as well as text XML. > > I'm not sure where the idea that this is technology exclusive > to Sun and > not Microsoft comes from. Can you clarify? > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> > >
|
