[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?

• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Bill_de_h=D3ra?= <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:43:45 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <oprsuedtg6ezizxn@localhost>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC683@h...> <oprsuedtg6ezizxn@localhost>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

Mike Champion wrote:

> Yeah, this gets into the "XML: Syntax or Infoset" permathread, but I 
> agree that "lossless translatability" to the 1.0 syntax is the most 
> important criterion for determining whether something has "XML nature".

Well it's not lossy that worries me so much (the Infoset is quite 
clear on that); rather having to have bInfoset codecs to hand. Today 
all I need is an XML parser. With bInfosets I have no idea how many 
I'll need. All that value Tim Bray talks about re blame allocation 
is eroded when someone tells me I need version X.Y.Z.spK of their 
Infoset codec.

Bill de hÓra

-- 
Propylon
http://www.propylon.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>

• References:
  • RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Webswell Connect R/R 1.04
• Next by Date: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Previous by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread