W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-binary@w3.org > April 2005

binaryXML-30 discussion in/near www-tag

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:31:40 -0500
To: public-xml-binary@w3.org
Cc: Ed Rice <ed.rice@hp.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>, Vincent Quint <Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr>
Message-Id: <1112895100.15073.847.camel@localhost>

Since the release of ...
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xbc-characterization-20050331/

the TAG has resumed discussion of issue binaryXML-30
 http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#binaryXML-30

While the TAG hasn't made any group decisions yet, we did
discuss it as a group last Tuesday...
  http://www.w3.org/2005/04/05-tagmem-minutes.html#item06

Norm said he had done some review for another group, though
there was no particular reason he hadn't
sent this message to public-xml-binary...

 Review of binary use cases 
 From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:32:51 -0500
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2005Mar/0046.html

And since then, Noah cited some work on XML optimization techniques
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/thread.html#35

and while the subject lines don't show it, the thread quickly
went to substantive discussion of the XBC documents and binaryXML-30.
In particular, Ed's message seems to be more of a comment
on the XBC documents than on the XML optimization work...
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0036.html

I'm not sure if the discussion should be cross-posted to
public-xml-binary or what, but for anybody that is following
public-xml-binary and not following www-tag, here's a
heads-up.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 17:31:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 1 December 2005 00:07:42 GMT