Re: TAG opinion on XML Binary Format
From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@d...] > Disagree. I'd summarize it as > Bottom line: prove it I agree. I was a bit put off by the apparent indecisiveness of the TAG opinion until I remembered that they aren't supposed to discss process, just technology. It's up to the W3C team and AC to determine if those wanting to *start* a WG need to prove what needs to be proved, or whether those wanting to *exit* to an eventual Recommendation need to prove it. On 5/25/05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@i...> wrote: > Bottom line, Rich, is I have to have this > soon for major projects. LZW can get > us by, but if the W3C can't prove it or > make up it's mind, standardization for > this goes elsewhere. As Michael said, > we'll just do it. That's the way it's spozed to be. People just do it, and someday a standards organization comes along and paves the footpaths. There are an awful lot of binary XML footpaths being trodden out there and it is way too early to determine which if any need to be paved. I'm intrigued though ... in what scenario does LZW compression get you by? I would think that it would add value only in situations where you have big messages, low bandwidth between nodes, and processing power to spare on at least the compressing side. Also, why do you want W3C to stir up the pond here? If the ASN.1 binary XML stuff from ITU meets your needs, Just Use It.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format