Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Ive used 1,2,4 lengths, it is neccessary otherwise the size may skyrocket. /anders Al Snell wrote: > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Stefan Zier wrote: > > > A generic binary format would take away the pain of creating specialized > > binary representations for different applications - WBXML is actually almost > > generic. I think the critical question here is: Can we come up with a > > one-size-fits-all solution that fits most relevant applications well enough > > to be useful? > > That's the spirit :-) > > I'm aiming for something quite simple to describe, since I feel that will > appeal to the kinds of markets XML appears in. > > Dilemma: > > Do I use 32 bit lengths for everything, meaning that no CDATA or element > name or attribute name or namespace URI or PI body or target can be more > than 4Gb in length? (Don't laugh, it may be an issue). Or do I encode the > length scale in the top two bits of each byte-long tag, so we can use 8 > bit lengths for most stuff, 16 bit lengths for large spans of unbroken > CDATA text, and 32 bit lengths for embedded images and pathological > cases? This would be a slight increase in complexity, but it'd be more > compact in the common case of strings being quite short. > > ...those are the kinds of issues I'm mainly worried about. > > ABS > > -- > 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS > <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@l...
|
