RE: "Binary XML" proposals

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

Perhaps.  On the other hand, many of your samples 
talk about imaging and for the real time visualization 
groups based on other text based formats (eg, VRML), 
it has been good enough.  Again, the proposals for 
binaries are bi-annual events.  As Sean says, a requirement
the programmer thinks is obvious and engineers say 
may be obvious but wrong given a particular form, 
fit and function analysis.  So we are back to comparing 
a standard binary for ANY XML language to binaries 
for particular XML languages and asking if the 
optimizations for the particular language warrant 
leaving binaries to each language (that is, the 
evidence of WML is based on the form, fit and 
function of the WML platform, not all web 
platforms in general).  The time and place for a 
spec is when a system is to be developed.  The 
time and place for a standard is when systems 
that have been developed have sufficient commonality  
that a standard provides a signficant cost recovery 
to justify constraining the evolution of that class 
of system.

Umm... if this isn't for web app development and 
XML is SGML On The Web, then what other communities 
are we talking about here?

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

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Al Snell [mailto:alaric@alaric-snell.com]

It's fine for Web app development, basically. In Web app development,
increasing hardware costs is much easier than increasing programmer time,
and you already have quite meaty servers lying around so the overhead of
compressing with gzip is hidden.

However, in other communities less well represented here, it's not very
useful...