[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yep. The problem is that the qualities one optimizes for tend
to be competitive, that is, none make all as fast or as
small as possible. It's too much like shoe and bra sizes:
the trendy solution may not be comfortable or long lived
so the classics keep on being used.
I suspect the answer will be classes of binaries of which, one
or two dominate the runway. Happy to be proven wrong because
this is fast becoming a real requirement, not a nice to have.
len
From: Liam Quin [mailto:liam@w3.org]
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:29:06AM -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> The XBRC folks have thoughts on this.
>
> http://www.w3.org/2003/09/xmlap/xml-binary-wg-charter.html
As I've said in public on a number of occasions, we can't stop people
from using a binary representation to transmit XML. They're already
doing it. There are dozens (hundreds?) of systems and formats out
there today.
The W3C XML Binary Characterization Working Group has the unenviable
task of helping W3C decide whether we should be in the business of
specifying some sort of efficient way to interchange XML that's
different from gzip that HTTP can already use.
In other words, is it better to have one open and well-documented
freely-implementable textual format and lots of incompatible binary
formats (as today), or to have one textual and also one binary
format, both open, well-documenetd and freely-implementable, with
a number of secondary binary formats still in use here and there?
Getting the major players round the same table means that we can
get significant commitments to move to a W3C-blessed format if it
comes close enough to requirements, and also helps us with the
IPR side of things (if the major patent holders participate).
We don't yet have a clear answer to the question, "is there likely
to be a single format or framework that will come close to meeting
enough people's needs?" and without that it's hard to compare costs
and benefits.
Liam
PS: Sometimes I think the main difficulty the W3C XML Binary
Characterization Working Group has is in living down such a
long Working Group name, but that's another story :-)
|
