[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Atom and Binary XML (was RE: Re[2]: mnot-03, Infoset & syntax in sec
Danny Ayers wrote: > (Bob Wyman suggests [1] Infoset-based binary > serialization of Atom syndication format, > providing a schema in ASN.1 [2]) Actually, the ASN.1 schema I offered (only a draft, it still needs work) is really FYI only. Any XSD schema for Atom would serve just as well as an ASN.1 schema to drive ASN.1 encoders/decoders. This is because the mapping from XML Schema to ASN.1 has been defined as a standard by ITU-T and ISO. So, providing a schema in the ASN.1 notation isn't necessary to define a binary encoding of Atom. As soon as there is an XSD defined, the schema-specific binary encodings of Atom are defined. i.e. "Binary Atom" (or a binary encoding which is semantically equivelant to Atom) is already defined whether or not anyone thought they were doing it... > It's not hard to imagine the uber-aggregators and > mega-aggregators communicating with each other in > this way, sharing as much as possible of the bandwidth > load of spidering. This is precisely what we've been discussing with a couple of sites that currently host a large number of feeds that we consume. The idea is that while they would, of course, continue to provide RSS or Atom feeds for normal use, they would provide an alternative feed for us so that we can minimize the impact of our spidering of their sites. This is good for everyone I think... > My own opinion is that ... in most [cases] a custom, > non-Infoset-based serialization would almost certainly > be better. It is certainly the case that non-Infoset-based serializations will, in general, be more compact and faster to parse than Infoset-based serializations. As mentioned above, it should be noted that such non-Infoset-based serializations are implicitly defined as soon as you define an XML schema for Atom or any other XML format since XSD to ASN.1 conversion is deterministic and standardized. However, there is value in non-Infoset-based serializations given the current usage of XML since there is a great deal of "no-schema" XML on the net and many people write extensions to schema-defined formats without providing proper schema updates. Infoset-based serializations support the same flexibility that XML users have become accustomed to -- but at a cost... Infoset-based serializations are less compact and slower to parse than schema-based encodings. > Another side question, assuming that binary Atom was > available, how would this work with the Atom API? Clearly, the Atom API as currently defined isn't going to work with non-XML encodings. To work, there would have to be some mechanism for the endpoints to negotiate or discover each other's ability and/or desire to consume alternate encodings. That isn't supported in the current API. bob wyman
|
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
|