• From: Guenter Obiltschnig <lists@a...>
• To: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:01:57 -0400

<rant>
Do we really need another binary XML standard? I mean, what's wrong  
with Fast Infoset for those who absolutely need binary XML? It's an  
ITU standard, it already has some implementations that have been  
successfully interop-tested, and it seems to workk reasonably well.  
Haven't those guys at all those WGs better things to do than to  
reinvent the wheel?
</rant>

So is anyone willing to enlighten us how exactly is EXI better than FI?

Günter

On Jul 19, 2007, at 11:52 , Michael Champion wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-20070716/ has been published; now  
> it's time for the rest of the world to take a look at what W3C has  
> come up with and evaluate whether it meets a real world need.   
> Elliotte Harold http://www.cafeconleche.org/oldnews/ 
> news2007July18.html has the only post I have seen so far that  
> expressed an opinion: "The Efficient XML Interchange Format is  
> neither efficient nor XML nor interchangeable."
>
> I'm particularly interested in thoughts on what the WG came up with  
> in the light of the TAG opinion http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ 
> public-xml-binary/2005May/0000.html .  Specifically, how much of a  
> performance / compresison gain would it take to outweight the  
> disruptive effects the TAG noted? It would be interesting to have  
> that discussion before the EXI WG publishes their report on how  
> much actual improvement they see for which scenarios.
>
> For the record, Microsoft has expressed considerable skepticism  
> that a single efficient XML format could cover enough use cases  
> with sufficient improvement to justify a W3C Recommendation, but we  
> are waiting for the hard evidence.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Is it time for the binary XML permathread to start up again?
    • From: Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@t...>

• References:
  • Is it time for the binary XML permathread to start up again?
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>