Re: [architecture] Fwd: greeting from XimpleWare

[claus.hirth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Jimmy,

"Jimmy zhang" <jzhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
schrieb am 11.08.2004 02:37:02:

> Claus, 
>    Thanks for the email. Whether XML
is human-readable has 
> to do the very meaning of "human-readable."
I think that what
> makes XML unique is the combination of open,
interoperable,
> loose-coupling and (almost) human-readable. 
               
      ^
               
      ¦

You just confirmed my point here. :-)

> Loose-coupling 
> means that, similar to HTML,  a Web services
application will
> have the option of processing only what it intends
to understand 
> and process, and disregard other parts of the
contend, and not
> break the application. 

> The same thing can't be said of RMI or
> CORBA, which must have a schema before hand.
The problem
> is that when people changes implementation, they
inevitably
> have to the change the data itself, which breaks
applications.

No, only when they change interfaces ; -- and they
know they must
not do that...

>  
>   For Enterprise App Integation, interoprability
is the most
> important thing, XML is *ideally" suited
for that. 

I think that is still a subject matter under dispute.
No doubt
XML has a lot to offer -- but *ideally* is too much
of a claim.

> Adam bosworth
> had a very article on this,
> http://www.fawcette.com/xmlmag/2002_04/magazine/departments/endtag/
>  
>  Let me know what you think of it.

I would not recommend reading that article: it's too
shallow.

I can find no proof in the above article for the claim
that XML 
would be *ideally* suited to solve the interoperability
problem.

Today's XML is part of the problem (! not of the optimum
solution !)
because it allows for so many encoding variations,
which requires
XML processors to be more complex than inherently
necessary.

That is at the core of the suggestion I made yesterday
(see 
quotation below).

Yet, let all this aside, in my opinion:
your approach seems to be valuable for dealing with
today's XML, 
and should therefore be analyzed closer by OW for
possible 
adoption.

Kind regards

        Claus Hirth

>  
> Cheers,
> Jimmy Zhang
>  
>  
>  
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: claus.hirth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> To: Jimmy zhang 
> Cc: francois.letellier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:37 PM
> Subject: WG: [architecture] Fwd: greeting from
XimpleWare
> 
> 
> Dear Jimmy, 
> François, 
> 
> quote from http://www.w3.org/2003/08/binary-interchange-workshop/20-
> ximpleware-positionpaper-updated.htm : 
> 
> "XML is, by design, human-readable [ ... ]" 
> 
> That is not so, quite remarkably. Consider 
> 
> (1) 
> 
> XML does not prescribe one, and only one, standard encoding. 
> Therefore any XML Editor or XML Viewer must deal with eg character
> encoding declarations at 
> attribute level. 
> 
> See http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#charencoding 
> 
> (2) 
> 
> For URIs, XML requires everything that is non-ASCII to be encoded
ineg UTF-8,
> which is not what I would call human-readable. 
> 
> See http://www.w3c.org/TR/xmlbase/#escaping 
> 
> -- 
> 
> So really, XML is designed to be completely 
> * transferable through every network on the market, 
> * storeable on any storage device on the market, 
> but it is not designed to be completely following the 'view source
principle',
> although XML in most practical cases does come close to this principle...
> 
> -- 
> 
> The following are the conclusions to draw from the need for both 
> * readable source 'view the source' 
> * efficient marshaling for network and storage transfer: 
> 
> (1) Define a standard 'view the source' form for 'XML'; 
>     eg: require it to be encoded as UCS-4, 
>     because that is the only possible realistic choice.
> 
>     Consequence: you can't 'view the source' if your editor
can't 
>     display all the characters from UCS-4. 
> 
> (2) Compile the 'view the source' form to a networkable form of XML
>     whenever you save the source from your editor. 
>     A network byte order binary XML representation would
be one 
>     possible networkable form. 
> 
>     Consequence: a standardized and portable compiler must
be made 
>     available in a FOSS implementation. 
> 
> (3) Require XML processors to understand both the binary standard
form, 
>     and the 'view the source' form, of 'XML'. 
> 
>     Reason: That let's the user choose whether he wants
to 'view the source' 
>     or whether he wants optimum marshaling performance.
> 
>     Note: By this we also require any XML-View-The-Source-Editor
to be 
>     able to read and display 'network byte order binary
XML' as if it 
>     were a 'UCS-4-encoded XML'. 
> 
> (4) Encourage the transitional support for the current alternative
encodings 
>     of XML such as UTF-8, UTF-16 in XML processors to support
existing 
>     'legacy-XML' documents and applications. 
> 
> I would be interested to hear your opinions on this. I'd be especially
> interested, and grateful, if you can point out any flaws that may
have 
> slipped in. 
>     
> Kind regards 
> 
>         Claus Hirth 
>         Diplom-Informatiker Universität 
>         Member of the ObjectWeb Consortium 
> 
> 
> ----- Forwarded by Claus 2003-05 Hirth/eMaert on 10.08.2004 21:50
----- 
> 
> Francois Letellier <francois.letellier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb
am 10.
> 08.2004 11:56:45:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > FYI: XimpleWare is currently considering joining OW and maybe
submitting 
> > their project, VTD-XML, as an OW project.
> > The email below explains it all...
> > 
> > - Francois
> > 
> > 
> > >From: "Jimmy zhang" <jzhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >To: <francois.letellier@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Subject: greeting from XimpleWare
> > >Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:31:16 -0700
> > >
> > >
> > >Hi, Francois,
> > >
> > >   How are you? Hope all is well.
> > >
> > >   It was nice talking with you last week in Linux Expo.
> > >I am just glad to know that ObjectWeb is offering the
> > >world such a great product for free.
> > >
> > >   We (ximpleware) recently released an open source
> > >software called VTD-XML on sourceforge
> > >(http://vtd-xml.sf.net). The goal is simple: we want to
> > >make XML Web services applications scale. The
> > >problem with current generation XML processing
> > >technology is it will suck up to 90% of CPU cycles.
> > >There has been a lot of interesting development in
> > >W3C over the subject of binary XML. Our position
> > >paper is available at
> > >http://www.w3.org/2003/08/binary-interchange-workshop/20-
> > ximpleware-positionpaper-updated.htm
> > >which gives a pretty good overview of the technology.
> > >
> > >   We are very interested in learning more on how
> > >We can partner with Object web to deliver move
> > >the XML web services initiative forward. Could you
> > >suggest procedures or contacts within ObjectWeb?
> > >I appreciate your suggestion of any kind.
> > >
> > >Best regards,
> > >Jimmy Zhang
> > >===========
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You receive this message as a subscriber of the 
> > architecture@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing list.
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:architecture-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > For general help: mailto:sympa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=help
> > ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws