Lists Home |
Date Index |
Well, actually I mean the idea of calling something
XML that clearly isn't. The spinning of the 'what
is XML' thread doesn't impress me much. I agree
with Elliotte. The spec tells us exactly what
People who want to do things that experience has
shown are short-sighted are sometimes called innovators
while their critics are labeled Luddites or Sabots.
After the innovators do their damage, it is a little late
to hit them with shoes. We really do need to know
if a binary is something only some applications need,
and therefore, a generalized spec and standard are
not required. Once a binary is approved for
all XML applications, XML will rarely be seen
as the programmers rush for the binary format for
the same reason countries fear they will be second
class without nukes.
My problem with the current thread is that it is
designing a binary ahead of making that determination.
The case is made for some applications using a binary.
The case is not made for it being generalized.
From: Rick Marshall [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
On Fri, 2004-04-09 at 23:50, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> > References to 'optimized XML' without a clear
> > set of definitions for this. The slippery slope
> > is evident.
> That's why there's a WG about it :)
i think len means the wg is the slippery slope. i certainly suspect it