RE: BASE64 (was Re: CDATA)
Has anyone seen SVGMaker. It uses BASE64 encoding to encode binary data and XLink to resolve this binary data. This looks like a nice way to handle Binary data in XML. <image id="image0005" width="100%" height="100%" preserveAspectRatio="none" xlink:href="data:image/png;base64, iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABIAAAARCAYAAADQWvz5AAAAh0lEQVR4nNWTwQrD MAxDn/bjdb/87dKwtkuXFMZgAl9io8hSEpVZJFFNr/eYZhlgmiiJImvSX0EdVlGH EyjPM/nkUbIKIMt7j3UTsmSoCBDwrGhfBapzq0EJXE5AjUn2PtFR1i75WvzTippn ta148G+UWg8tyZeQidSu/eLeO7qD3/+1/yN6AqKDQ3pfgS9WAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC"/> -----Original Message----- From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:seairth@s...] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:19 AM To: xml-dev Subject: BASE64 (was Re: CDATA) I still don't see why a <![BASE64[ ]]> isn't added. 1) Nothing needs escaping. 2) The encoded form falls neatly into all content encoding forms (I think), so parsers don't have to switch between "character" and "octet" hats. 3) When someone asks "how do I handle binary?", the answer would be a flat "<![BASE64[ ]]>" instead of "Well, can do this... or this... or this... and you are responsible to all encoding/decoding". I suspect much less grumbling will occur. 4) For anyone arguing that it causes bloat: why are you using XML in the first place then? 5) It's a clean, simple, and well-used technique. 6) It's about as 80/20 a solution as I can think of. So why not add it? --- Seairth Jacobs seairth@s...
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