What is Microsoft's experience with Efficient XML Interchange solutions?
By sandoz on Oct 21, 2005
Mike Champion states on his blog:
“For example, Microsoft's opposition to Binary XML standardization is based on actual experience wrestling with the different ways in which XML is inefficient and in analyzing how to improve that inside various XML-based products in ways that wouldn't impact interoperability. I suppose that to many on the outside it looks like stasis -- we recognize the XML is inefficient but can't endorse an industry-wide attempt to improve efficiency; from the inside I see the analysis -- the cost of XML's inefficiency seldom outweighs the benefit of data interoperability, and when it does, the optimizations for one product domain haven't been useful in another.”
I asked before (IIRC this will be the third time) what this experience is but have yet to receive a satisfactory answer. It would be great if some people from Microsoft could explain what difficulties they have encountered. I am no way implying that Microsoft has not encountered very real issues. Stating that there are problems is fine but such statements need to be backed up with reasons for these problems otherwise it is difficult to move the debate forward.
Two such proprietary binary formats developed by Microsoft are:
the WCFs binary messing encoding, for the efficient encoding of SOAP message infosets; and
What are the differences between these encodings that make it difficult for them to share a common encoding framework?