[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:59:24AM +1000, Rick Marshall wrote:
[...]
> imho the w3c needs to be very careful about this binary business
>
> i'd rather see the rdbms model where the external view (rows) and the
> access method or api (sql) are are ascii and in the case of sql - a
> standard; while the storage of data - possibly binary, and the
> optimisers that go with it are as proprietary as you like with all the
> ip and other stuff that suits
We're seeing quite a few people wanting more efficient transmission
across networks -- for example, for web services, or for serving up
graphics -- and for those people, such a model wouldn't suffice.
It's not clear to me (yet) whether it's an area worth standardising,
but I do think it's worth investigating.
> the important principle being that the data access and interchange are
> not ip owned by any one company or individual
>
> xml really should stay the same - the formats are public and specified.
If W3C does go down the road of specifying any binary formats for
interchanging XML, at any level, you can be sure that it will be
under the W3C Patent Policy: that is, it will be public, specified,
open, freely implementable, and you will not have to pay for the
specification itself.
> fwiw i think standardisation in this area will only limit innovation and
> increase the costs of participation for smaller companies and
> individuals
If you can make a clear argument that supports that position, and that
assumes that tbe binary format would be open and documented, please
send us a position paper. If you can't attend the Workshop we're
holding, maybe someone else can present it. Or, even better, come
to the Workshop. There are plenty of places open right now.
Liam
--
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, liam@w3.org, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
|
