• From: "Al B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• To: Amy Lewis <amyzing@t...>
• Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:54:07 +0100 (BST)

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Amy Lewis wrote:

> *hated* it).  Or XDR for RPC ... I'll have nightmares, I'm sure, with
> the memory returned now.

I'm sorry :-)

[Binaries in XML rather than vice versa]

> Why?  Why is it nicer to stuff binary into XML (which is specifically
> designed for text transmission), than to create a container meta format
> to transport XML + binary?

Because you can embed text, numbers, colours and so on directly into the
XML; why introduce a complex seperate mechanism for large binary strings?

Since either way you need to introduce a new beast for XML parsers to
examine (or else the binary+XML containers can't be examined by XML
parsers for metadata extraction), I'd rather go for a consistent approach
that means every data type can be treated similarly.

> 
> Amy!
> 

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software  

• References:
  • Re: "Binary XML" proposals
    • From: Amy Lewis <amyzing@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Next by Date: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Previous by thread: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Next by thread: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread