[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: "Binary XML" proposals
"Clark C. Evans" wrote: > ... > Good luck. But if you are "extending XML" don't call it XML, or > even "binary XML". That would be bad. The only extensions I plan to suggest are layered on top of XML, just like all good XML compatible projects. In particular, I need efficient and fine grained 'pointers' and delta overlay trees. > > It is interesting that your project is the antithesis > of SML-DEV, where we *love* the textual XML format > but just think that the structure is a bit too complicated. > > Interesting... > > Clark > > P.S. I agree wholeheartedly with Tim Bray and Sean > McGrath's posts. Binary XML is dead on arrival. > Getting away from binary formats is the _entire_ > reason for XML. Being able to audit your > inputs and outputs. One reason I sometimes refer to Binary Structured XML (bsXML ;-)) as 'compressed' is to allude to the analogy of being able to 'uncompress' the stream to examine in in text. This is completely similar to using gzip or bzip2. Note that initially and primarily, I am still going for a self-described format that is completely equivalent to XML 1.0. This is different from WML and comparisons to ASN.1 where some information is implied. I have however been considering a 'compression' level that includes a standard way to do versioned dictionary compression which makes sense for XML use in protocols. sdw -- sdw@l... http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000
|
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
|