[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: "W. E. Perry" <email@example.com>, XML DEV <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:27:26 -0500
Walter says: "the fundamental premise of accepting node-to-node opacity as
price of universal node-to-node addressability is the exchange that
the internetwork topology."
Sure. Universal addressing by saying anything addressed is a "resource"
is somewhat the same as saying "thing" and leaving that open to local
I'm not sure how that argues against a standard binary for XML. It might
against a binary per XML application because of the cost of adding more
"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
is does it make it significantly better. We can spin our propellors and
day but we need a cost justification (any currency of value) to insist on a
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h