[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Binary XML" proposals
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Miles Sabin <MSabin@interx.com>,"'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:29:29 -0500
It usually comes back to cost recovery in the
SGML CALS proponents argued for
years for the advantages of markup in the
long lifecycle systems and were proven
In a short lifecycle message format (system
outlasts or is more pervasive than data) where you
can either throw it away or archive it,
one gets back to form, fit and function
debates. SGML wasn't used for protocols,
so maybe this is a new wrinkle, but I suggest
it is more related to archival so in that
sense, the same advantages: recoverability
and reusability. Addressing INTO a binary
requires some tricks not used a lot since
HyTime unless one is mapping to an abstraction.
Ever since the SGML binary discussions (circa 93?),
this idea comes up at least biannually. It is like
aliens: if they are here, where are they? The
binary requirements can be asserted but one soon
discovers that versions exist, none have been
adopted widely and begins to ask why. The
answer is usually that all other tradeoffs
and conditions accounted for, there isn't
enough cost benefit to justify adding yet
another format to the support soup. Do protocol
requirements offer a more compelling case
than short lifecycle documents (where WYSIWYG
turned out to be a good idea over markup:
final fixed format vs archival format)?
That said, press on. It's like a soap
opera where one waits to see if the
new character is good or evil: great
entertainment but the plot remains the same.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Miles Sabin [mailto:MSabin@interx.com]
True in the document world, perhaps. But not so obviously true
in the protocol world. For example, DNS question and answer
payloads are an example of an open, structured, binary format.
There are many others.