[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Re: Pushing all the buttons

• To: "'andrzej@c...'" <andrzej@c...>, Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: RE: Re: Pushing all the buttons
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:02:49 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Or you can already have experience with the content in 
both the production and deployment scenarios and know 
you need "a" binary independent of the XMLization.  That 
is the case for real time 3D.  VRML needed the binary prior 
to X3D.  We already have the experience.  Again:

1.  The case for a binary depends on the application.
2.  The case for a generalized XML binary will depend 
    on requirements that enough XML applications share to 
    to justify the specification costs.

It really must not be simply "they are doing it in the 
wild already and we must control that for [Put Reason Here]". 
That would be like trying to force bonobos to adopt the 
mating habits of chimpanzees.  Surface similarities don't 
make the case particularly 'in the wild'.

len


From: Andrzej Jan Taramina [mailto:andrzej@c...]

Which would seem to validate my point, given that often you don't 
know this in advance.  Prototypes can be a good thing when it comes 
to performance testing. 

> One can only hope that Father Darwin will weed out that meme in the
> long run :-) 

I prefer to help the good Father along.  Ready, Fire, Aim! ;-)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Binary vs. tagged data formats was: Re: Re: Pushing allthe buttons
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@o...>

• Prev by Date: RE: ISO turns evil?
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Pushing all the buttons
• Previous by thread: incremental XML outputting and handling of huge DOM trees
• Next by thread: Binary vs. tagged data formats was: Re: Re: Pushing allthe buttons
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread