|
|
Re: [xml-dev] Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 24/07/2003 20:30:18 GMT Daylight Time, mc@xegesis.org writes:
That's Permathread 3 "The W3C is Evil / No, it's the nature of committees
to do that kind of stuff". I'm asking for flames on Permathread 2, "Binary
XML is evil / No, it's needed for industrial-strength XML". :-)
Mike,
I am not totally sure where you are deriving your numerical classification of unresolved issues / permathreads but the two issues which you refer to are closely entangled on this topic.
You referred to Elliotte's article (http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/) where you will see that W3C process (he refers to some of its defects) is anticipated by him to impact on the outcome re "Binary XML".
It is too simplistic to state that "The W3C is evil". It is a little more perceptive to comment that W3C process is defective in that it allows a closed process of specification development .... a self-selected few in closed Working Groups producing "Requirements" in a process which is closed at crucial points and with sometimes closed ears at each public step in response to adverse comment ... to bulldoze through special interest topics then label the result a "standard".
Of course, I am well aware that W3C uses the term "Recommendation" rather than "standard" but the developer in the cubicle doesn't know the difference.
As I have asked previously, to what end is the W3C "leading the Web to its full potential ...."? It is a pretty sad state of affairs if the real answer is "The W3C ... leading the Web to its full potential .... to satisfy the commercial interests of special interest groups.". Surely a supposed "standards body" should aspire to something better?
Returning to the point on which you sought comment. I don't hold either of the views you offer. I view "Binary XML" as an oxymoron. If "XML" as defined in the XML 1.0 Rec is "XML" then "Binary XML" doesn't exist in my view.
It may well be arguable that binary "stuff" vaguely or less vaguely related to XML is useful or perceived as beneficial. However, it seems to me to be a misrepresentation to suggest that such binary "stuff" is actually XML. I can see the benefits of branding the binary stuff by using the term "XML" but such a use of the term "XML" in "Binary XML" seems to me to be essentially fraudulent.
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|