Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I agree. The topic is changing. My bad. I don't see these as isolated problems. Ecologies always have overlaps and that is where the trouble or the opportunity emerges. Binaries make that topic more complicated. The problem is that the interop profile of a given application language can shift if that language goes vertical and takes the binary with it. So a single binary for multiple reasons is a non-starter unless the workshop parties have an approach I've not yet seen. Multiple binaries are a fact. We can drop this now. I think everyone understands this. I'm a mine canary. Fortunately, for the next five days I get to get out of the cage and go sing. len From: Michael Rys [mailto:mrys@m...] Len, I think you are now shifting the discussion (not a bad thing, mind you - I think we have beaten the horse to dead and back by now) from talking about the goal of the binary XML Workshop and binary representations of XML towards the impact certain vocabularies of XML in certain contexts (such as rich client programming) will have. That vertical discussion is certainly interesting, but as Dare already noted, neither he nor I really work on the vertical stuff. I am a plumber :-) I think it was good that XAML is an XML vocabulary. Whether this is an area that should be standardized today (probably not), later (maybe) or never is a separate discussion and should be done with the right people involved in the discussion.
|
