Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: Jonathan Robie <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] TAG opinion on XML Binary Format
- From: Jason Aaron Osgood <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=TrBkNS1fhARZ/zX/zC2o74dkMyZE54DMrYneeNPo4KfRciiRDJV/IzwYhmRlf9tE1VHrVPl+MLXui1JNOnG7K4Me/cBGXaiQ4/VZlX5ZKc6/vylMZm+uzygCzY+u2tkfizMzXiewp5/Fhzs06cUInhESTi0K0zeRNV+ew+/1JGA= ;
- In-reply-to: 6667
Hi Jonathan Robie-
> Bottom line: there are a lot of things that would need to be
> demonstrated before they feel it is clear that a Binary XML
> recommendation would be a good thing.
That's a pretty good write up.
Wow. Live long enough and you're likely to see just about everything.
But, honestly, I never thought I'd witness the W3C adopting the
precautionary principle in my life time. Congratulations!
Binary XML is just about the second dumbest idea I could imagine. And
I don't mean that in just the negative way. As I've quipped
(elsewhere) before, try hard enough and you'll have reinvented IIOP.
Which, as we all know, is a fantastic idea in and of itself.
Cheers, Jason Aaron Osgood / Seattle WA