Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Apr 19, 2004, at 1:31 PM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> And again, is a binary characterization WG a mandate to overhaul
> other parts of the system 'while we're at it'.
No, it's " tasked with gathering information about uses cases where the
overhead of generating, parsing, transmitting, storing, or accessing
XML-based data may be deemed too great for a particular application,
characterizing the properties that XML provides as well as those that
are required by the use cases, and establishing objective, shared
measurements to help judge whether XML 1.x and alternate (binary)
encodings provide the required properties."
It's not like the Good (Bad?) Ol' Days of the W3C where one could
assume that what came out of a WG would be a de facto standard. The
less than overwhelming success of XHTML, XLink, XSDL, etc. and the
lack of world domination by SOAP 1.2, DOM 3, etc. should diminish
concerns that the W3C is somehow leading the world to binary ruin by
starting this WG, EVEN IF it were to conclude that there are objective,
measurable benefits of some alternative serialization for some
important use cases.
The other parts of the system are being sorted out by those
discontented with the XML status quo, without the advice or consent of