RE: "Binary XML" proposals

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Walter says:  "the fundamental premise of accepting node-to-node opacity as
the 
price of universal node-to-node addressability is the exchange that
underlies 
the internetwork topology."

Sure.  Universal addressing by saying anything addressed is a "resource"
which 
is somewhat the same as saying "thing" and leaving that open to local
implementation. 
I'm not sure how that argues against a standard binary for XML.  It might
argue 
against a binary per XML application because of the cost of adding more
formats.

"It is our good fortune that XML appeared just as the 
number of these mutually-opaque but mutually-addressable 
nodes is furiously increasing."

Not good fortune.  That was the precise problem of the printing houses 
whose requirements spawned markup in Bill Tunnicliffe's day.  In later 
days they were simply called "islands of automation".  The wire replaced 
the tapes and the sneakers, but the essential problem is always negotiating 
and shared means to create and interpretable message the receipt of which 
initates a predictable behavior.

Adding a standard binary doesn't seem to make the problem worse. The
question 
is does it make it significantly better.   We can spin our propellors and
spec all 
day but we need a cost justification (any currency of value) to insist on a 
standard.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h