Re: Binary XML - summary of discussion to date

["Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net>]

James Robertson wrote:
> 
...
> I find it bizzare that another format is being considered
> when support for the existing format (text XML) is so
> pathetic!
> 
> Sure, there are plenty of Java, Perl and Python tools.
> Even some C and C++ libraries. But support across the
> board is still along way from being a reality.
> 
> I ask now, as I have asked before: can we just stop
> creating new stardards, and get on with creating some
> useful tools for the standards we already have?

Did it occur to you that part of the reason it isn't more widely
deployed is that it's too slow and/or bulky to fit some problems?

I understand that what I'm doing might not make it to a standard.  The
point is to aim for something that is suitable for a standard as set of
design constraints.  Saying that it is intended to be the generic
'binary structured XML' equivalent to XML 1.0 implies all those
constraints.

The problem is that I have used XML in a number of projects and in the
one with the most extensive use, current tools were far too inefficient
to be a long-term solution.  I'm trying to solve that elegantly in a way
that I can use on all future projects, not just a one-off.

> J
> 
> -------------------------
> James Robertson
> Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
> SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
> Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution
> 
> http://www.steptwo.com.au/
> jamesr@steptwo.com.au

sdw
-- 
sdw@lig.net  http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams
43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 
Dec2000