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

RE: Comments on XBC Use Cases

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:04:46 -0500
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206DD5@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: 'Norman Walsh' <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, public-xml-binary@w3.org

I want to challenge only one of your positions, Norm.

A question one might ask is where is the threshold for 
the length of a lifecycle at which point it is better 
to use XML versus a format that is more performant and 
if, from which, the XML representation can be derived without 

What about short lifecycle documents?

Lifecycle is in the eye of the operator.  While the lifecycle 
property is a compelling property of XML, it is not of 
necessity a constraining property of all of its applications 
in time and space.  Forgetting is as important as remembering.


From: public-xml-binary-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-xml-binary-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Norman Walsh

I am *utterly* unmoved by the arguments, though perhaps personal bias
plays a part. The long-lived nature of documents makes a textual
encoding of the information an overwhelmingly superior choice, in my
opinion. I'll gamble that my textual XML documents will be readable,
at least by humans, in 1,000 years. I won't make that gamble with
*any* binary format.
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 19:04:52 UTC

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