[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Why a "general" solution? (was: RE: XML Binary Characterizatio
Claude L Bullard wrote: > The case is made for some applications using a binary. > The case is not made for it being generalized. We should address the general issue of binary alternative in order to: 1. Ensure and encourage interop 2. To allow capturing "best practices" 2. Permit and encourage reuse of solutions 3. Improve XML, XML Schema, etc. The highest priority should be to encourage interop. Today, people who are driven to a binary format (for whatever reason) are left to their own devices and have little guidance concerning the quality of XML alternatives or what may be best practices for using them. We can't prevent binary solutions from being used. What we should do is whatever is necessary to ensure that those binary solutions don't compromise interop. For instance, this thread has raised a number of issues or dangers concerning binary formats. There is a concern that conversion of floating types might cause damage or that signatures might be invalidated on conversion to binary. Thus, what we need is a document that can say things like: 1. Beware of certain type conversions. Watch for pattern facets, etc. that may require preservation of lexical elements such as leading and trailing zeros or leading "+". 2. When handling a signed XML document or element, use X.finfo, not X.fws, in order to ensure that it can be faithfully reconstruction of the signed content." 3. etc... It would be massively more useful if the current statements such as: "Don't use an alternative since it might cause problem X." were reworded to say: "If you use an alternative, ensure that X does not occur." Capturing this guidance would be generally useful no matter which binary format is used or even if the alternative format is, like XML, text based. It should also be noted that if the XML community actually faces seriously the issues of interop with alternatives, we might discover or highlight some areas of XML that are underspecified or that could be improved. For instance, providing an easier to use mechanism for specifying which optional lexical elements of numberic types need be preserved might improve XML interop independent of any consideration of binary alternatives. 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
|