Lists Home |
Date Index |
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> I think that forking is both necessary and useful, and it might in fact
> let the two communities communicate better both internally and with each
Amen. I feel this is even more true thanks to the fact that they do in fact
share tools and ideas to some non-negligible degree of intersection.
> Let's get the hell out of each other's ways. The sooner, the better,
> preferably in an orderly way, with well-established bridges.
> A flexible set of tools that lets the must-have-typed-data-as-fast-
> as-possible folks do their work without the overhead of XML seems like a
> good idea on its own merits - preferably a toolset standardized in an
> open process without intellectual property constraints and with multiple
> interoperable implementations. A clearly-defined process for
> converting between that format and an XML format, even a somewhat
> grotesque XML format, would be even better. (Think of it as a filter
> you can insert between the data and an XML parser, letting you treat it
> as XML even though it ain't.)
That's _exactly_ the point. A good binary format ought to be
SAX_DOM-in/SAX_DOM-out. If it's built on XML-related foundations (eg the
Infoset) it'll be that much more easy to bridge.
I'm looking forward to cross-pollination replacing cross-pollution.
Robin Berjon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488