[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Binary XML" proposals
- From: Peter Jacobi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 09:45:56 +0200
Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Absent some good strong empirical evidence, neither processing
> nor storage cost are a priori arguments for going binary.
So, why has MPEG-7 choosen binary? Some sort of seekability? Also
medical data acquisition for data volume intensive modalities effectively
has choosen binary.
Separating "bulk" from "structured" data will enable using textual XML for
the "structured" data. Some application need locality, so "structured"
and "bulk" must be multiplexed, as in the multipart/BEEP proposal we
have seen some days ago.
But this isn't necessarily easier to use than a binary external
representation for XML. And in contrast to the proposals of extending
XML for binary content, using a binary external presentation for standard
XML will be invisible to all newer W3C Recommendations and to all tools
which use some sort of layered approach.