RE: "Binary XML" proposals

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

Not exactly free.  You accept URIs, the 
web system identifier.  

MPEG4 likes XML too.  It is the only thing 
holding X3D and XMT together.  MPEG doesn't 
always equate to open format (patent encumbered) 
but that is a different issue.  So you are saying 
the BiM might be a "Standard XML Binary"?  

Back to WAP:  would that work or is it 
YetAnotherAppSpecificBinary?  I'm not 
saying binaries are evil; just that so 
far "no size fits all".  Calling for a 
standard binary is a lot more serious 
and comprehensive and competively constraining 
then proposing a binary for a given application.

Sure, I do understand what an intranet 
is good for.  That is how we use XML too.

As an alternative to PSVI.  Ok.  What 
was the first choice?  This seems to be 
inflating the requirement before we have 
a first choice ready. But given that 
argument, what say the supporters of 
PSVI to a binary representation?

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

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Jacobi [mailto:pj@walter-graphtek.com]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> wrote:
> 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?

Stream formats for medical devices, when I'm asked.

Stream formats for video for MPEG7 BiM.

Speaking for myself only: Don't care at all about "XML is SGML On The 
Web". But there are all these nice XML recs and tools implementing 
these. So I get a big, free deal, if using a binary file format, which can
be 
seen as an alternate external representation of (PSV-) XML Infoset. Of 
course some plumbing still required.