Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 07:47:45AM -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> I agree with Elliote to some degree. I'm personally more concerned
> that this is yet another W3C effort that would involve taking a number
> of contradictory requirements and design goals then trying to hack them
> together into some sort of coherrent whole.
My personal take is that if the requirements are contradictory,
we (W3C) shouldn't be trying to make a single spec to meet them.
So then the question is, are there compromises that will let us
make an 80% cut (say).
I certainly don't think a large and complex binary interchange spec will
be of any real use.
Eliot wrote (quoting Liam):
> >So the question as I see it becomes, is there a way to specify a
> >binary format, or binary interfhange framework of some kind, in
> >such a way that a significant majority of the people currently
> >using binary formats agree to implement and use it?
> You're still assuming in advance of the facts. This is *exactly* what
> I was afraid of from the W3C. You're saying if we can do something,
> we should do something.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying, part of determing whether we should
act is determining whether acting will bring benefits.
> [...] a single orthodox binary representation will replace XML in many
> more cases leading to a less interoperability and much less
> transparency overall.
Ths is an interesting point, and one that will certainly be raised at
next week's Workshop. At least four attendees have raised it already,
and I agree it's an important issue.
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, firstname.lastname@example.org, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/