


From: Michael Champion <mcham@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:23:31 -0800
Message-ID: <EB0A327048144442AFB15FCE18DC96C70523B87A@RED-MSG-31.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-tag@w3.org>

> Why does this problem justify a binary XML standard?

little doubt that there are many real-world problems with XML's size and
disputing the Binary Characterization assessment of the problems.  Maybe
they will go away with better parsers and compression schemes, or maybe
Moore's Law will make them irrelevant, but none of those sound like safe
smaller encodings that have been shown to work for specific usage
DBMS engine, or for SOAP messages between two nodes built with the same

evidence that a single binary XML standard could optimize both speed and
improvement justifies the very real social and economic costs that
another XML encoding standard would impose. Yes, there are benefits
achieved with industry-specific standards that don't attempt to come up
compromises are technically difficult to define and politically
difficult to justify. 

I would suggest that the burden of proof is on anyone writing a charter
for a followon binary XML WG to gather evidence to make the case that a
single binary XML standard could work across a wide range of XML
scenarios. Presumably there are enough prototype formats/implementations
out there to be analyzed according to the Binary XML Characterization
WG's criteria so that this should not be an unreasonably high hurdle to
whatever those demonstrable benefits might be against the likely costs,
and use that information to rigorously justify a decision to pursue (or
not) a binary XML Recommendation-track WG.  
Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 02:23:41 GMT
