[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion wrote:
> Yup. That's why I (and Robin Berjon, I suppose) are spending the energy
> to try
> to persuade Tim that the idea is not as stupid and evil as it may appear
> at first glance :-). The "binary infoset" genie is out of the bottle.
> The question
> now is whether he serves the industry as a whole in a reasonably sane
> and IP-free way, or whether he serves several proprietary masters in
> a fragmented and patent-encumbered manner :-)
Hmm, I gather that people out there are already cooking up binary
interchange formats that meet their needs. Robin claims that there's a
strong existing candidate for a standard in this area in BiM. This is
all well and good, and for any imaginable such format it's probably
going to be pretty easy to work out a canonical mapping to XML for
people who need it.
If there is enough basis of experience for a standard in this area,
somebody has to invest the work to write it down and move it through the
process. What we can't afford is to let someone stick a label on the
side of such a project that says "XML". XML is, and should remain, a
very specific promise about making available bits on the wire in a
single highly-constrained textual syntax. -Tim
|
