OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] XML Binary Characterization WG public list available e

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread 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 
XML is.

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:rjm@zenucom.com]

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



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS