[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Liam Quin wrote:
> 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.
Not hundreds, but definitely many. Last time I tried to find as many as
I could I came up with 80ish. Many of those were extremely similar
however -- there are many usages that contradict one another to some
degree but not that many (and, as we're finding, not as strongly as we
thought).
> 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.
We don't yet have the clear answer, but I personally find it much
clearer now than a year ago thanks to the very valuable input that
people have brought to the WG's table. I have hope that things will be
clear soon enough :)
> 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 :-)
"10. Terseness in Working Group Naming is of minimal importance."
--
Robin Berjon
Research Scientist
Expway, http://expway.com/
|
