• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: BASE64 (was Re: CDATA)
• From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>
• Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:48:39 -0500

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...

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: BASE64 (was Re: CDATA)
    • From: "Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: NDATA section (was: RE: CDATA)
• Next by Date: RE: mischief
• Previous by thread: Re: NDATA section (was: RE: CDATA)
• Next by thread: RE: BASE64 (was Re: CDATA)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread