Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:30:54 -0400
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> I suspect that using groves to define an Infoset for XML would be
> great for
> groves, but I'm not sure it would do anything good for XML.
I think the big win for XML would be a way to define a mechanism to
arbitrarily convert legacy data into XML. As the author of XMTP and
developer of an early binary to XML system, I can't tell you how many times
I get asked the question about how to send images, as XML or MIME, via SMTP
or HTTP, using SOAP?
The answer, always, is: it all depends on what you want to do. XMTP
demonstrates that any MIME message can be converted into XML. Is there any
point *in actually* converting it into XML, for say XSLT transformation, or
why not emit a series of SAX events via a parser. Can I use an XPointer to
point into a MIME document? sure, via an XMTP 'view'.
Now we are into real practical 'grove' issues. So, if there existed an XML
Property Set, and I can define a common subset with a MIME Property Set, my
XPointer/XLink specification which is built on top of XML Infoset (in the
ideal world) can specify an 'XPointer' for MIME messages.
> If that means reinventing the wheel periodically, well, there seem to be a
> lot of wheels in need of periodic reinvention...
This is the big question :-)
The Open Healthcare Group