• From: Leigh Dodds <ldodds@i...>
• To: Al Snell <alaric@a...>, xml-bin@w...
• Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:48:59 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Al Snell [mailto:alaric@a...]
> Sent: 19 April 2001 23:30
> To: xml-bin@w...
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re: [Xml-bin] :-(
>

[...]

> Mine neither. However, it will be trivial to find real world examples that
> really show binXML in a good light...

Its just as important to identify where binXML *isn't* of any use, so
that an informed decision can be made about where it can be usefully
applied.

> not choosing an unfair comparison,
> but just pointing out that the use cases many XML people work with day to
> day (actual document processing) aren't greatly in need of binary
> representations, but other equally valid environments are :-)

I suspect that the mix of docheads versus datamungers on XML-DEV
is fairly even. Personally I'm on the fence as I have to do both.

> That's the spirit. Even if a research project fails, at least the fact
> that it failed and the results it found along the way are still very
> valuable pieces of information. In fact, you can probably say that there
> is no such thing as a failed research project.

The funding body might disagree :)

Cheers,

L.

• References:
  • Re: [Xml-bin] :-(
    • From: Al Snell <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: [Xml-bin] :-(
• Next by Date: RE: Using W3C Regular Expressions
• Previous by thread: Re: [Xml-bin] :-(
• Next by thread: RE: [Xml-bin] :-(
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread