why obscure Feasability section?

The table in...
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xbc-characterization-20050331/#N103F4

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
forward?

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 donÿt 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 donÿt call it XML. ´Binary XML¡ is
an oxymoron.
]]
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2005/04/01/Binary-XML


[[

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