• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: PSVI formalization
• From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@e...>
• Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 19:21:11 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <1020966262.984.2366.camel@l...>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] 
>
> I have no qualms about saying that textual representations 
> with fully-expanded end tags are an inefficient means of 
> shipping large quantities of integers and dates around, not 
> to mention the thrills of binary data.  (base64?  hexBinary?  
> wow.  Incredible, even.)

XML inefficiency is a red-herring wrt the PSVI.


> XML is a wonderful foundation for building certain kinds of 
> information interchange systems, and a key tool for making it 
> clear that information interchange is in fact possible.  XML 
> is not an ideal tool for exchanging all kinds of information, 
> however.  The metadata costs of working with a text format 
> spiral rapidly as more complex types than element structures 
> and attribute annotations are applied.

I can't see how a binary format helps. The metadata will still need to
be applied.


> What is this constant call for concrete?  Stalinist 
> architecture at its finest?  

I guess folk are looking for some substance to an argument before
they'll let themselves be convinced.
 
Bill

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: PSVI formalization
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • RE: PSVI formalization
    • From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@e...>
  • RE: PSVI formalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

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

• Prev by Date: RE: PSVI formalization
• Next by Date: RE: PSVI formalization
• Previous by thread: RE: PSVI formalization
• Next by thread: RE: PSVI formalization
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread