These might be food for thought for MS and others, who want to discuss
the subject of using XML in IPP.
Regards,
Carl-Uno
---I would be surprised to see XML used to describe interfaces, though I suppose it could be. Basically, what I have seen of it in my limited encounters is that it is more like job or document metadata and references to things assume availability of distribution mechanisms that are not themselves described. (URL's and URI's are very popular in this context.)
I agree that it doesn't appear to be efficient at communicating data structures among applications that can rely on a stronger agreement that has less redundancy in the transmitted data encodings because there is strong application agreement.
In a way, that is exactly the sense in which XML is lighter-weight, plus it needs to be used at a not-too-fine-grained level. So delivering job parameters and providing descriptive status responses is perfect. It also fits into the idea of having a small delta between that and HTML or something a script could handle.
One thing I am not sure about is what happens when scripts start being included as the values of XML attributes. That and the ability to refer to applets and components at the scripting / automation level may be something that is perhaps considered easier to migrate to. I don't have a thought about that, I just wonder if it is something that Microsoft is noticing as a possibility. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if script engines start supporting access to these babies.
Your characterization of the difference between XML and a data stream designed for marshalling and efficient transmission fits my impression also.
-------
Carl-Uno Manros Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation 701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231 Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514 Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com