• To: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: TAG opinion on XML Binary Format
• From: Jason Aaron Osgood <mrosgood@y...>
• 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.
> 
> Thoughts?

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

zappini.blogspot.com

• Prev by Date: Re: Call for Participation: W3C Workshop on XML Schema 1.0 User Experiences
• Next by Date: Re: TAG opinion on XML Binary Format
• Previous by thread: RE: TAG opinion on XML Binary Format
• Next by thread: [ANN] nux-1.2 release
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread