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

RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available

• To: "'Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)'" <clbullar@i...>, "'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@m...>, "'Eric van der Vlist'" <vdv@d...>
• Subject: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>
• Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:20:20 -0400
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F606@h...>
• Reply-to: <bob@w...>

Claude L Bullard wrote:
> That brings us back to the real issue: do 
> we really need one-size-fits-all-binary? 
	Whether or not you think you need it, the reality is that you
can't have it. There is no "one-size-fits-all" binary format. The best
you can hope for is one-size-fits-most or
one-size-fits-more-than-others... In any case, the key is to make sure
that the final result is "one-size-fits-enough-to-be-worth-it."
	My personal feeling is that ASN.1 is the best available
solution to the "one-size-fits-most" case. ASN.1 has been an
international standard for a very long time, has been used extensively
and has defined mappings from XML Schema to ASN.1. Basically, all the
hard work has been done here... The choice should be obvious...

		bob wyman

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@l...>
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@s...>

• References:
  • RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML-appropriate editing data structures
• Next by Date: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Previous by thread: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Next by thread: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread