• To: "'basudeb gupta'" <basudeb0001@y...>,"'Hurd, Bruce'" <Bruce.Hurd@n...>,"'Tech Rams'" <techmailing@y...>,"'Anil Philip'" <goodnewsforyou@y...>,"'xml dev'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:13:30 +0100
• In-reply-to: <20050919114228.96134.qmail@w...>
• Thread-index: AcW9DzYdSizjiiqLTZeVpuZcW9F41wABBcPw

> The whole concept of writing <xxxxx> followed by
> </xxxxx> is almost childlike in its simplicity and
> wastefulness.

A very good summary! 
> 
> Why are someone talking about binary XML suddenly?

Because for most people, the benefit of the simplicity is greater than the
cost of the wastefulness; but for some people it isn't.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• References:
  • RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
    • From: basudeb gupta <basudeb0001@y...>

• Prev by Date: RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
• Next by Date: RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
• Previous by thread: RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
• Next by thread: Re: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchangingdata?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread