Lists Home |
Date Index |
I agree. The topic is changing. My bad. I don't see these
as isolated problems. Ecologies always have overlaps and that
is where the trouble or the opportunity emerges.
Binaries make that topic more complicated. The problem is that
the interop profile of a given application language can shift
if that language goes vertical and takes the binary with it.
So a single binary for multiple reasons is a non-starter
unless the workshop parties have an approach I've not yet
seen. Multiple binaries are a fact.
We can drop this now. I think everyone understands this.
I'm a mine canary. Fortunately, for the next five days I
get to get out of the cage and go sing.
From: Michael Rys [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Len, I think you are now shifting the discussion (not a bad thing, mind
you - I think we have beaten the horse to dead and back by now) from
talking about the goal of the binary XML Workshop and binary
representations of XML towards the impact certain vocabularies of XML in
certain contexts (such as rich client programming) will have. That
vertical discussion is certainly interesting, but as Dare already noted,
neither he nor I really work on the vertical stuff. I am a plumber :-)
I think it was good that XAML is an XML vocabulary. Whether this is an
area that should be standardized today (probably not), later (maybe) or
never is a separate discussion and should be done with the right people
involved in the discussion.