- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:13:13 -0500
- To: 'David Orchard' <dorchard@bea.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>, Don Box <dbox@microsoft.com>, "Rice, Ed (HP.com)" <ed.rice@hp.com>, Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>, www-tag@w3.org, klawrenc@us.ibm.com, haggar@us.ibm.com
I find it disappointing too because after that long, BEA, IBM
and Microsoft have had time to run them and satisfy themselves,
publish the results, and contribute these to the debate as to the
best solution for an XML binary.
The XML Binary is soon to be a market fact. Only two decisions
remain:
1. Is there to be a single standard or multiple standards?
2. Which submitted designs are to contribute to the content?
len
From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
David Orchard
My position remains the same as articulated in BEA's position paper [1]
for the binary interchange workshop, particularly in the "How To Measure
Candidate Solutions" section, bullet 4.c ("Measurable
benefit(properties) from benchmarks") in the "Recommendations" section,
and expressed further in the workshop.
My position also remains the same on the importance architectural
properties of self-description and extensibility, also articulated in
our paper.
I find it disappointing that 1 1/2 years after we made recommendations
that serious and normalized benchmarks be done to provide data for a
rigorous comparison of architectural properties of various solutions,
I'm back to making the same recommendations.
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 15:13:20 UTC