[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Could be. I am less afraid of the dark forces than
spells too weak to heat porridge. Better a death
eater than an evil squib? If a common binary reduces the
effectiveness to some lowest common denominator that
isn't that performant, why bother? I suspect a lot
of requirements per applicant need to be evaluated
before putting too much effort into the design. Then,
pleassssse, instead of trying to build a design to
meet them all, make the decision up front what kind
of support can be bolted-in (eg, graphics compression)
vs what can be left out because only one language
needs it instead of forcing every implementation to
support it. I realize this is going to tie back
to permathread 4 (types are evil), but there it is.
Another reason, unfortunate but true, that some
want a binary is to reduce the amount of theft by
view source. I know that is also a weak spell, but
as the content goes up in cost, so does the desire
to keep it branded. One problem about the view source
defense is that it treats all content as equal with
regards to value and kinds of value.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
Sure. Lots of brimstone vapors in the air. But *if* the working
hypothesis that various aspects of XML 1.0 format conspire to make it much
slower to parse than alternatives that have "XML nature," it's not clear to
me how the world is worse off if the W3C works with the demons rather than
letting them run wild. [The Ministry of Magic's arrangement with the
Dementors comes to mind :-) -- they were problematic as guards at Azkhaban,
but they may be far worse as allies of Voldemort! ] Those who think "Binary
XML" is the spawn of the devil might wish someday that the W3C had kept the
demon spawn on the payroll rather than free to ally with the various Dark
Forces out there :-)
|
