W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2004

klyne25, take 2

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:18:59 -0400
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040908131859.GG13611@markbaker.ca>

>         klyne25 klyne25: Add reference to RFC3117, section 5.1?
>          "On the Design of Application Protocols"
>          [29]http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3117.txt
>          sec 5.1 Framing and Encoding
>          DC: I'm interested to look at it
>          NW: klyne25 LC-critical.
>          ACTION DanC: report on study of RFC3117, section 5.1

Dan, in case you forgot, here's a copy of the message I sent to you when
you asked me what I thought of it;

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:15:20 -0400
To: connolly@w3.org
Subject: klyne25
Message-ID: <20040728031520.GE4081@markbaker.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Status: RO
Content-Length: 809
Lines: 24

Hi Dan.

>From RFC 3117 sec 5.1, the arguments for the use of XML appear to boil
down to;

1.  hierarchical, simple
2.  ease of use; lots of tools, well understood
3.  bloated but compressible

webarch sec 4.5.1 already covers off #1, largely.  #3 is more a reason
against *not* using it, rather than a reason *for* using it.  #2 is
borderline as a "design constraint", but it's certainly an important
factor for choosing XML IMO.  So I'd be tempted to add something like;

  7. A need for access to a wide variety of tools, and/or to leverage
     wide spread expertise with the format


BTW, I'd appreciate it if you could keep your ears open for any cool
Web/Sem-Web integration projects/products that need an architect/
designer/coder type.  I'm wrapping up a project in the next few weeks.

Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 13:17:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:45 UTC