Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Walter says: "the fundamental premise of accepting node-to-node opacity as the price of universal node-to-node addressability is the exchange that underlies the internetwork topology." Sure. Universal addressing by saying anything addressed is a "resource" which is somewhat the same as saying "thing" and leaving that open to local implementation. I'm not sure how that argues against a standard binary for XML. It might argue against a binary per XML application because of the cost of adding more formats. "It is our good fortune that XML appeared just as the number of these mutually-opaque but mutually-addressable nodes is furiously increasing." Not good fortune. That was the precise problem of the printing houses whose requirements spawned markup in Bill Tunnicliffe's day. In later days they were simply called "islands of automation". The wire replaced the tapes and the sneakers, but the essential problem is always negotiating and shared means to create and interpretable message the receipt of which initates a predictable behavior. Adding a standard binary doesn't seem to make the problem worse. The question is does it make it significantly better. We can spin our propellors and spec all day but we need a cost justification (any currency of value) to insist on a standard. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
|
