[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Images embedded in XML
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, darshan@PerfectXML.com,xml-dev@lists.xml.org, 'Seairth Jacobs' <seairth@bbglobex.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 16:30:58 -0500
Sounds reasonable. And yes, no one says
it has to be in a DOM, so good point and
yes base64 is the way to put it in the XML
safely.
OTOH, I wonder if the tradeoffs for
keeping it out of the XML outweigh
the benefits of keeping it there given
that one can put it in another bag
and call the bag by name. Seems to be
one of those 'best practices' issues
like asking if it is better to use
RDF or to use XML Schema with embedded
Schematron rules.
Oops. That is troll bait. ;-)
Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
At 03:44 PM 04/04/01 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Dumb question: In general, is it a good idea to
>send any blob like this or would it be better
>to keep it out of the XML and put it say elsewhere
>in a MIME multipart message? What use is
>there for putting unqueriable large datatypes
>into a DOM?
Er, there are other ways to deal with XML than putting
it in a DOM. Lots of people want to package up
multiflavor multimedia in XML, enough that it's
pointless to tell them they shouldn't want to. And
base64 seems to do the right thing in a reasonably
efficient and very well-understood way. -Tim