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

Re: Why a "general" solution?

• To: <bob@w...>
• Subject: Re: Why a "general" solution?
• From: Berend de Boer <berend@x...>
• Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:39:21 +1200
• Cc: "'Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)'" <clbullar@i...>, <rjm@z...>, "'Robin Berjon'" <robin.berjon@e...>, "'xml-dev'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <002701c42252$9bbd65c0$650aa8c0@BOBDEV> (Bob Wyman's message of"Wed, 14 Apr 2004 14:59:26 -0400")
• References: <002701c42252$9bbd65c0$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>
• User-agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.2 (windows-nt)

>>>>> "Bob" == Bob Wyman <bob@w...> writes:

    Bob> 	The highest priority should be to encourage interop. Today,
    Bob> people who are driven to a binary format (for whatever
    Bob> reason) are left to their own devices and have little
    Bob> guidance concerning the quality of XML alternatives or what
    Bob> may be best practices for using them. We can't prevent binary
    Bob> solutions from being used. What we should do is whatever is
    Bob> necessary to ensure that those binary solutions don't
    Bob> compromise interop.  

This last point exactly prevents binary XML from being used more
widely :-)

A good thing IMO.

-- 
Regards,

Berend. (-:

• References:
  • Why a "general" solution? (was: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available e)
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RE: Schema vs Schema-free (was: RE: XMLBinary Characterization WG public list availabl)
• Next by Date: RE: RE: Why a "general" solution? (was: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available e)
• Previous by thread: Why a "general" solution? (was: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available e)
• Next by thread: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available e
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread