Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: Rich Salz [mailto:email@example.com]
> Disagree. I'd summarize it as
> Bottom line: prove it
I agree. I was a bit put off by the apparent indecisiveness of the TAG
opinion until I remembered that they aren't supposed to discss
process, just technology. It's up to the W3C team and AC to determine
if those wanting to *start* a WG need to prove what needs to be
proved, or whether those wanting to *exit* to an eventual
Recommendation need to prove it.
On 5/25/05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Bottom line, Rich, is I have to have this
> soon for major projects. LZW can get
> us by, but if the W3C can't prove it or
> make up it's mind, standardization for
> this goes elsewhere. As Michael said,
> we'll just do it.
That's the way it's spozed to be. People just do it, and someday a
standards organization comes along and paves the footpaths. There
are an awful lot of binary XML footpaths being trodden out there and
it is way too early to determine which if any need to be paved.
I'm intrigued though ... in what scenario does LZW compression get you
by? I would think that it would add value only in situations where
you have big messages, low bandwidth between nodes, and processing
power to spare on at least the compressing side.
Also, why do you want W3C to stir up the pond here? If the ASN.1
binary XML stuff from ITU meets your needs, Just Use It.