• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: PSVI formalization
• From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 12:31:47 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1020957328.984.2325.camel@l...>
• References: <1020957328.984.2325.camel@l...>

At 11:15 AM -0400 5/9/02, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

>A binary PSVI format could sure make XML-RPC (PSVI-RPC?) messages a lot
>smaller.  All it takes is a spec, some free parsers, and some tools.
>Maybe someday programmers will look back on XML as the bootstrap phase
>of the PSVI, while the occasional markup geek still pokes around CDATA
>sections.
>

Simon,

What a brilliantly insidious idea! Condemning the PSVI folks to 
irrelevance by tricking them into returning to binary file formats, 
and thus giving up all the proven benefits XML has achieved through 
straight-forward textual representations that are almost always 
smaller than the binary formats they replace. Why, I bet they'll 
spend years developing binary PSVI solutions while the rest of us got 
real work done with text. I commend your deviousness! I bow before 
your evil genius!

--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
33rd degree member of the Secret Society of Syntactic Supervillians

• References:
  • PSVI formalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RE: working with text (was RE: XPath 1.5? )
• Next by Date: RE: PSVI formalization
• Previous by thread: PSVI formalization
• Next by thread: RE: PSVI formalization
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread