[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Binary XML - summary of discussion to date
- From: "Stephen D. Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: James Robertson <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:16:47 -0400
James Robertson wrote:
> I find it bizzare that another format is being considered
> when support for the existing format (text XML) is so
> 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
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.
> James Robertson
> Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
> SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
> Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution
Stephen D. Williams
43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax