Re: Typing and paranoia
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:25:19 -0800, Tim Bray <tbray@t...> wrote: > What really scares me is the recurring theme that we ought to re- frame > XML as a data model and treat the syntax as just one serialization. That > makes me seriously paranoid - if somebody promises me XML, I want a > stream of unicode characters with angle-brackets, not some fragile opaque > binary kludge which is advertised as having infoset semantics -Tim Consider Noah Mendelsohn's draft reply to the XML Core WG or the TAG or Paul Grosso (I forget which) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Dec/0003.html especially "Note that, because SOAP is Infoset based, in a situation where two nodes share a memory (run on the same processor or tightly coupled MP), it is perfectly sensible to build a binding that does its work by just passing around DOMs, SAX streams, or other in-memory representations of the Infoset. In these cases, no serialization or parsing need ever be done. Also: implementations can in principle use compressed or encrypted forms, possibly by compressing or encrypting the <...> serialization, but also possibly by using other compressed or encrypted representations. In principle bindings could be written to send parts of the Infoset out of order, in parallel over multiple links to improve bandwidth on large messages, etc." You don't REALLY want two processes on the same machine to pass around angle bracketed Unicode text rather than DOMs or SAX event streams do you? Or do you just object to calling it "XML"? Sigh, I'm paranoid about types but have learned to stop worrying and love the Infoset. XQuery doesn't worry you, but binary infosets do. And Simon is paranoid of both :-)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format