Re[4]: mnot-03, Infoset & syntax in sect. 2

[Dave Pawson <davep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Monday, December 29, 2003, 4:01:10 PM, you wrote:


BW> Dave Pawson wrote:
>> I'm also curious how confident you are 
>> in the semantic equivalence Bob?
BW> 	Very confident. As confident as I am that the Infoset, as
BW> defined, carries the full semantics of any particular chunk of XML.

>>Isn't that the issue being discussed on xml-dev?
BW> 	Yup.

>> Surely one of the standards bodies is the right place 
>> to resolve a binary format?  Perhaps in preference to 
>> this forum?
BW> 	Yes. Of course. This is the root of my objection to Tim Bray's
BW> comment on this subject. I believe that this is *not* the correct
BW> forum to debate the issue of binary encodings. Thus, there should be
BW> no statement that Atom is somehow "opposed" to binary encodings or
BW> that such encodings, if standardized, should not be used with Atom.
BW> The Atom forum should worry about Atom. Other forums (like the W3C,
BW> ITU-T, etc.) should deal with the binary encoding issue.

I don't speak for Atom. I don't believe Tim did either.
Surely we, as you, are entitled to our opinions?

My personal view is that I'd not like to see atom feeds in a binary
encoding. Equally I think your 'glutton' approach to feeds is
corner-case if not excessive. If you derive a binary encoding from the XML, wouldn't
that meet your speed needs?

regards DaveP