- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:04:46 -0500
- 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 loss? 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. len 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