Lists Home |
Date Index |
Possibly. It may be a step too far just as MID was in
its day but isn't now. Listening is everything. Timing is
everything else. The question would be, is it time for ASN.1?
If so, bid the X3D RFP but because you have the best solution
and you believe in it, not because MS offends you. I sincerely
doubt the W3DC cares much about those kinds of agendas today.
They will also have to face up to the fact of the extensibility
of XAML into 3D graphics (Chrome lives!) and that the display
space processor is moving onto the fast graphics boards. I'm
not ignoring that MS is picking up all the jacks with one
toss of the ball. I am confronting that directly, but not
with anger and whining, but a constructive suggestion.
In defense of XML and the OneSyntax agenda, it has done a
lot to open up the heterogeneous systems to portable data.
If we could stop confusing that with interoperability we
could be ready for the next step but I believe that given
the semantic gap, that is a big step to take.
I do understand abstraction. Remember, X3D is not an
XML-only language. It would have been had I prevailed,
but fortunately, wiser and smarter heads than me did.
From: Bob Wyman [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>At least we have XML FWIW.
And, we have the ASN.1 defined encoding rules that are
completely interchangeable with XML. This means that we can offer
interchange that is both easy for humans to read and debug (XML) and
compact, fast to parse, etc. (ASN.1 defined encodings) without loss of
Let Microsoft rely only on textual-encodings. They will get
the benefits of XML and XML-like syntaxes (ease of use) but will also
pay the price (bulk). Let the rest of us build a more flexible and
adaptive architecture that frees us from dependence on on-the-wire
encoding formats while offering the optimal mix of ease-of-use and
interoperabilty without compromising on compactness and speed of
ASN.1 + XML offers the best of both worlds. Microsoft only
offers one world -- their world...