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

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

• To: 'Robin Berjon' <robin.berjon@e...>, Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 08:32:34 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

This is likely the nut of the problem to be resolved.  It is possible 
that binarization gets the best results for each application 
by becoming non-interoperable across applications.  That is,
the needs of the particular application without regard for 
its encoding are the primary determinants of the usefulness 
of the binary format.  A binary that makes the encoding 
concerns dominant may in fact, be inefficient for most 
given applications.  So if in fact, the requirement for 
interoperation is examined more closely, it could be the
case that the requirement for a single binary infoset 
specification goes away.

Considering all text nodes to be of the same content and 
equal in value is false. The binarization approach taken 
to indexed face set content (see X3D) and <p> may be 
completely different.

len


From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin.berjon@e...]

As more domains come up with their 
own partial solution to the issue, the space becomes cluttered and 
interoperability suffers.

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

• Prev by Date: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• 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