[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Let the results speak for themselves. I'm not offering
prophecy but considering the problems we face in X3D that
lead me to believe that a binary optimized for that language
may not have much to offer to other languages. I'm happy
to be proven wrong about that. Be clear that what may come of
this group will be an alternative format that hopefully
interoperates with XML systems, but it won't be XML.
And that's ok.
Those that drive too fast are interrupted by other
objects blocking the road they are traveling including
other vehicles that were driving at the right speed
before the collision. The greater mass usually wins.
len
From: Stephen D. Williams [mailto:sdw@lig.net]
Respectfully, it is my opinion that those that question whether we need
a "one-size-fits-all-binary" XML are making assumptions about how much
of a negative tradeoff must be made in an optimized format. Certainly
with solutions like ASN.1 encoding, I would agree that the negative
tradeoffs are unpleasant (fixed schema 'compilation', etc.).
I believe however that several aspects of processing and representation
can be optimized without severe tradeoffs and with a large net positive
impact. That's what we should assume is possible and work toward.
One aphorism that I have always liked:
"Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."
Or the other saying by Joel A. Barker (according to:
http://www.cyber-nation.com/victory/quotations/authors/quotes_barker_joela.h
tml
):
"The ultimate function of prophecy is not to tell the future, but to
make it. Your successful past will block your visions of the future."
And yes, I have code. I'm going back to it now.
sdw
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Three doesn't go with one and two. That
>is the old bugaboo about scaling that some are
>beginning to realize is mythInformation in the
>web lore. The question is always 'interoperate
>with which systems?'.
>
>The web is not an information space, or at
>least, not one information space. That is
>lore. It is lots of little systems interoperating
>with each other and some of them using HTTP
>to do that to create small and large 'information
>spaces' within the same addressing system.
>Formats vary by system. URIs are always URIs.
>
>That brings us back to the real issue: do
>we really need one-size-fits-all-binary?
>
>I for one, doubt we do. Some of us do need
>a binary. Some sizes fit most and I think
>that that is what some think they will get
>from this WG. We'll see.
>
>len
>
>
>From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
>
>I think we may have this set of choices:
>
>1. Minimum size
>2. Maximum Speed
>3. Interoperable
>
>Pick any one. :-)
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
--
swilliams@hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
|
