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

RE: TAG opinion on XML Binary Format

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:05:26 -0500
Message-ID: <0C237C50B244FD44BE47B8DCE23A30520C3699@HOU150NTXC2MC.hou150.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Rice, Ed (HP.com)" <ed.rice@hp.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
cc: public-xml-binary@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the binary stuff is not important,
particularly in business contexts.

Having initially raised the issue, it seems to me that it is actually a
"relatively" minor one.  I mean, it's a kind of vague term and what
difference does it make anyway?  I would be relatively happy to just let
it drop.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rice, Ed (HP.com) [mailto:ed.rice@hp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:35 PM
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: public-xml-binary@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: RE: TAG opinion on XML Binary Format

I think the key word is 'relatively'.  Remember, we're talking about the
WW-Web where most content is formats like xml, html etc..

Relative to the total content, I would say it is accurate.

My 2c.

-----Original Message-----
From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 7:47 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: Rice, Ed (HP.com); public-xml-binary@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org
Subject: RE: TAG opinion on XML Binary Format

Roger Cutler writes:

> It seems to me that the statement "such cases are relatively uncommon"

below is highly dubious

FWIW, while I am in complete agreement with the overall position taken
by the TAG on Binary XML, I do share your concern with the statement

Note that it is a quote from the Architecture of the World Wide Web
Recommendation.  Maybe it should be reconsidered if that Recommendation
is ever republished, and perhaps we should not have included it without 
qualification in the note sent earlier today.   (speaking for myself and

not officially for the TAG)

Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

"Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org
05/24/05 03:02 PM

        To:     "Rice, Ed (HP.com)" <ed.rice@hp.com>, www-tag@w3.org, 
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: TAG opinion on XML Binary Format

It seems to me that the statement "such cases are relatively uncommon" 
below is highly dubious, given the variety of usage cases documented by 
the XBC workgroup.  However, the call for benchmarks seems reasonable to

me, as does the advice that such benchmarks should involve the "best
for the text case.  One thing that is unclear to me, however -- does
"best shot" include the use of MTOM and XOP for binary attachments?  If 
so, the distinction between text and binary becomes a little unclear to 
me.  I must admit that as far as the usage case I personally submitted
the XBC it seems to me that MTOM could probably be made to "do the job",

although a true binary standard would do it more neatly and flexibly.
understanding, however, is that there are other usage cases for which
won't really work, but it seems to me that documenting this very clearly

would be a good idea.
On a truly trivial note, do you think you could adjust your email client

so the line wraps work in my email client (Outlook)?  Your paragraphs
display for me as one very long line.
-----Original Message-----
From: public-xml-binary-request@w3.org 
[mailto:public-xml-binary-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rice, Ed (HP.com)
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:26 PM
To: www-tag@w3.org; public-xml-binary@w3.org
Subject: TAG opinion on XML Binary Format

TAG opinion on XML Binary Format
The TAG has reviewed in detail the documents [1,2,3,4] prepared by the
workgroup [5].  While we very much appreciate the significant progress 
that these notes represent, the TAG believes that more detailed analysis

is needed before a W3C Binary XML Recommendation is sufficiently 
justified.  We are taking no position at this time as to whether Binary 
XML will prove to be warranted, as there seem to be good arguments on
sides of that question.  Rather, we are suggesting that further careful 
analysis is needed before the W3C commits to a direction.
The TAG believes there are disadvantages as well as potential advantages

that will result from even a well crafted Binary XML Recommendation.
advantages are clear: a successful binary format is likely to provide 
speed gains or size reductions, at least for certain use cases.  The 
drawbacks are likely to include reduced interoperability with XML 1.0
XML 1.1 software, and an inability to leverage the benefits of
formats.  These are important concerns.  Quoting from the Web
   "The trade-offs between binary and textual data
   formats are complex and application-
   dependent. Binary formats can be substantially
   more compact, particularly for complex
   pointer-rich data structures. Also, they can be
   consumed more rapidly by agents in those cases
   where they can be loaded into memory and used
   with little or no conversion. Note, however,
   that such cases are relatively uncommon as such
   direct use may open the door to security issues
   that can only practically be addressed by
   examining every aspect of the data structure in
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2005 22:05:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:09 UTC