- 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>
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 UTC