I'm basically obligated to reply to a long long list of mudslinging and disfavorment on your part here- section by section:
1. You randomly talk about BaseX ad nauseum but brely mention what I was actually critical of- it's advantages vs base64. I still have no clean picture why not base64, like everyone else, which would serve the exact same needs.
2. You just finish talking about compression then slam me for mentioning compression as a relevant factor.
3. You criticize deser speed as not important, say decryption will dominate. But while the message format may be competing with PGP it's inner payload is msgpack and I expect inside the firewall systems to have canonical text as msgpack, and performance is relevant. But I didn't initially grok that msgpack is the inner payload, that the BaseX text is the normal messaging format.
4. You try to pull some technical distinction nonsense about msgpack being just a messaging format by talking about how competitors also have other stuff too, while also being a message format. I find this distinction in bad faith and believe most techs could reasonably see there is way more overlap than differences. Your advantage ends up rather accurately being "msgpcka has fewer features" and chalk up the advantage as some nebulous political one, while ignoring the fact that Thrift is owned by the most reliable open source org on the planet Apache whereas Msgpack is just some rando project.
5. You obviously don't know what Salmon is for. Your decision to focus on some apparently unrelated technical things that it corresponds with ignores that it is a (XML)signing format for arbitrary content. HTTP and HTML have no bearing on what Salmon Digital Signing Protocol is, yet you harp on them to draw a false contrast, and as usual you refuse to acknowledge that there could be some bearing or relationship that I had validly called out.
I'd like to better understand some of your valid points, but some of your arguments seem done in very bad faith and there to argue rather than explain or demonstrate. I have a hard time understanding how I can start to reconcile our two point of views with what you have written.
1. You randomly talk about BaseX ad nauseum but brely mention what I was actually critical of- it's advantages vs base64. I still have no clean picture why not base64, like everyone else, which would serve the exact same needs.
2. You just finish talking about compression then slam me for mentioning compression as a relevant factor.
3. You criticize deser speed as not important, say decryption will dominate. But while the message format may be competing with PGP it's inner payload is msgpack and I expect inside the firewall systems to have canonical text as msgpack, and performance is relevant. But I didn't initially grok that msgpack is the inner payload, that the BaseX text is the normal messaging format.
4. You try to pull some technical distinction nonsense about msgpack being just a messaging format by talking about how competitors also have other stuff too, while also being a message format. I find this distinction in bad faith and believe most techs could reasonably see there is way more overlap than differences. Your advantage ends up rather accurately being "msgpcka has fewer features" and chalk up the advantage as some nebulous political one, while ignoring the fact that Thrift is owned by the most reliable open source org on the planet Apache whereas Msgpack is just some rando project.
5. You obviously don't know what Salmon is for. Your decision to focus on some apparently unrelated technical things that it corresponds with ignores that it is a (XML)signing format for arbitrary content. HTTP and HTML have no bearing on what Salmon Digital Signing Protocol is, yet you harp on them to draw a false contrast, and as usual you refuse to acknowledge that there could be some bearing or relationship that I had validly called out.
I'd like to better understand some of your valid points, but some of your arguments seem done in very bad faith and there to argue rather than explain or demonstrate. I have a hard time understanding how I can start to reconcile our two point of views with what you have written.