On Jan 14, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Geoff wrote:
> But you describe XML as a 'standard' approach and call binary non-
> standard.
> By who's definition?
Are you serious? XML is indeed standardized:
http://www.xml.com/axml/testaxml.htm
. Can you say that about your binary format?
There are tools in every language to read/write XML. Can you say that
about your binary format?
> My question remains as to why use a format that is
> 20times as big as a binary format when there is no real reason.
That's not a question; that's called assuming the conclusion. By
assuming that there is "no real reason", you've changed a question
into a statement.
> My question revolves around the transmission of data and why use a
> verbose
> format when binary will do.
Again, not a question at all. And you've already received several use
cases for XML; it's no one's responsibility to make you actually think
them through.
> And why use a verbose format (XML) when its
> effect on network and application performance has the potential to
> be quite
> adverse.
Again, another non-question that has already been addressed.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
