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

why obscure Feasability section?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 12:46:38 -0500
To: public-xml-binary@w3.org
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, elharo@metalab.unc.edu
Message-Id: <1112895998.15073.857.camel@localhost>

The table in...

as numbers across the top followed by an un-numbered list
of candidate technologies. Why is the correlation obscured?
If we can't talk about these things openly, how can we move

I have read a number of comments on the recently released
XBC documents that I largely agree with. I would prefer
that people with comments send them to public-xml-binary
for themselves, but I want to be sure readers of public-xml-binary
know about these comments even if they don't regularly
read these blogs...

I don t care if anyone wants to go off and produce their own data
interchange format, binary or not, open or not, standardized or not,
mapped to XML or not; as long as they don t call it XML. ┤Binary XMLí is
an oxymoron.


The working group has determined a number of MUST properties for their
eventual Not XML format:

      * Directly Readable and Writable 
      * Transport Independence
      * Compactness 
      * Human Language Neutral
      * Platform Neutrality
      * Integratable into XML Stack
      * Royalty Free
      * Fragmentable 
      * Streamable 
      * Roundtrip Support 
      * Generality 
      * Schema Extensions and Deviations 
      * Format Version Identifier 
      * Content Type Management
      * Self Contained 

I predict they're not going to be able to create a format that satisfies
all their musts.
 -- http://www.cafeconleche.org/#news2005April1

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 17:46:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:42:01 UTC