Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 12:35:38PM +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
> I very much agree, which is why I coined the term "binary infosets" a few
> months back. I find it unfortunate to see that while the workshop cfp
> itself avoids the term, its URL and other pieces of W3C communication
> around it reuse it. This can only add to the confusion.
I'm sorry -- I should have chosen a better name for the URL. There
are some people who say one should not derive meaning from the
characters in a URL, and I think the W3C TAG members are among them..
in practice, though, people do read and interpret URLs. So, sorry
for not choosing a better URL there.
> Adding even more confusion is the fact that the CFP pretty much puts gzip
> up against ASN.1 when there are many more solutions,
I hope we do get more solutions offered in position papers.
> and puts a strong emphasis on size when it is possibly the least
> important problem. I guess
> these are details that will be ironed out at the workshop.
I think so. SOme people find size to be very important (if you'll
excuse the wordign) but for others, random access and efficient
reading are more important. It's this sort of difference that makes
me wonder if there is enough of a central core of functionality to
stndardise, or whether we should continue with text-based XML as
the only guarantee of interoperability.
> their patented, closed, binary, "XML" formats so they can sell their tools.
> The patents probably wouldn't survive through the W3C process, but they
> still hope to be able to complicate XML enough that programmers will buy
> their editors and APIs, rather than using simple, free tools like emacs and
> Xerces like they are now."
> Since there are only so many binary infosets vendors, and I work for one,
> I can only feel directly attacked here. You make serious accusations, show
> your proofs or admit to be spreading FUD.
I'm not aware of anyone submitting closed and patented formats so far.
Certainly if W3C standardises anything, it'll be according to the
W3C Patent Policy, and you can expect Royalty Free terms in anything
within the XML Activity. As Activity Lead, I can tell you that I would
not be happy writing a charter for a Working Group for something so
basic and fundamental to interchange as a binary representation of
Information Set Items unless it was Royalty Free.
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, email@example.com, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/