• To: 'Elliotte Rusty Harold' <elharo@m...>, Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Subject: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 15:40:14 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Three doesn't go with one and two.  That 
is the old bugaboo about scaling that some are 
beginning to realize is mythInformation in the 
web lore.  The question is always 'interoperate 
with which systems?'.

The web is not an information space, or at 
least, not one information space.  That is 
lore.  It is lots of little systems interoperating 
with each other and some of them using HTTP 
to do that to create small and large 'information 
spaces' within the same addressing system.  
Formats vary by system.  URIs are always URIs.

That brings us back to the real issue: do 
we really need one-size-fits-all-binary? 
 
I for one, doubt we do. Some of us do need 
a binary.   Some sizes fit most and I think 
that that is what some think they will get 
from this WG.  We'll see.

len


From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...]

I think we may have this set of choices:

1. Minimum size
2. Maximum Speed
3. Interoperable

Pick any one. :-)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@l...>
  • RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML-appropriate editing data structures
• Next by Date: RE: XML-appropriate editing data structures
• Previous by thread: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Next by thread: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread