[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: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Subject: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@l...>
• Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:57:51 -0400
• Cc: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>,xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <4076B25D.8030207@e...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F5F8@h...> <4076B25D.8030207@e...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031030

I completely agree with using 'optimized' rather than 'binary' because 
'optimized' is the goal, 'binary' is just one possible aspect of the 
solution.  That's why I changed the name of my work from 'binary 
structured XML' to 'efficiency structured XML'.

I agree that generally optimized XML should be completely expressible in 
XML 1.0 encoding.
There are two categories of effective extension to XML 1.0 semantics 
that I see as being crucial to support some types of application semantics:

Expressible in XML 1.0, but with specific support: i.e. fast pointers 
that can be represented by XPointers, IDs, offset attributes, etc.

Expressible only by multiple XML 1.0 documents or fragments or similar 
awkwardness.  Support for deltas, updates, versioning and similar falls 
into this category.  The fact that scattered nodes, text, and attributes 
have been updated in a document compared to the last version may be 
supported directly and very efficiently by an optimized XML encoding but 
only with difficulty with traditional encoding.

Some applications will require these features.  It may be that usage 
levels will have categories or something to differentiate progress (or 
is it deviance?) from XML 1.0 encoding.
If an application just couldn't use XML without an additional 
optimized-only semantic, there's not much issue with the advancement for 
that application owner.

sdw

Robin Berjon wrote:

> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
>> Yes.  I had never seen the term 'optimized xml' used before.  I have 
>> seen 'binary'.
>
> I've gotten into the (at least occasional) habit of using 'optimised' 
> instead of 'binary' because I don't think the WG should presume that 
> the solution -- if there is one -- necessarily relies on binarisation 
> (even if all tests I've seen thus far makes it look very likely).
>
>> Let's see what happens if a packaged document set is wanted as well.  
>> That is quite likely.
>
> I think there's a hard rule that optimised XML MUST NOT support any 
> feature that isn't supported by XML as well -- it's just optimisation. 
> If it were to do packaged documents, it would be by encoding an XML 
> expression of those.
>
> One bit of going-to-get-started-with-any-luck work that is related to 
> packaged docs is the W3C Workshop on Web Applications and Compound 
> Documents:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/index.html
>


-- 
swilliams@h... http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw@l... http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw

begin:vcard
fn:Stephen Williams
n:Williams;Stephen
email;internet:sdw@l...
tel;work:703-724-0118
tel;fax:703-995-0407
tel;pager:sdwpage@l...
tel;home:703-729-5405
tel;cell:703-371-9362
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

• References:
  • RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• 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 availabl e
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread