[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Binary XML" proposals
- From: Danny Ayers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Al Snell <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 20:41:17 +0600
All I can say is : best of luck!
<- -----Original Message-----
<- From: Al Snell [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
<- Sent: 10 April 2001 20:36
<- To: Danny Ayers
<- Cc: Tim Bray; The Deviants
<- Subject: RE: "Binary XML" proposals
<- On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Danny Ayers wrote:
<- > Ok then, take away speed & storage benefits, what gain is
<- there from binary
<- > XML?
<- I'm mainly after speed and storage, but making the parser simpler appeals
<- to me too, to a lesser degree.
<- And let's not forget image. To many programmers, XML *looks* inefficient
<- and awkward. That was my first thought when presented with the idea of
<- using it for data interchange; luckily I was enamoured enough of the good
<- work being done on various interesting schemas that suggested this data
<- format (although technically lacking in many respects) may actually
<- achieve "ubiquitous" status.
<- In *my* binary XML format project I'm not just going for speed, storage,
<- simpler parsing, and no more string quoting headaches; I'm also laying a
<- foundation that extends XML, allowing for attributes with arbitrary
<- markup, large binary objects inserted into XML, and something a little
<- more flexible than entities for "including" stuff. Those "extra" features
<- won't do anything when you're just processing normal XML through it, but
<- if it takes off in a big way (which will require a lot of marketing on my
<- part, I agree) and it becomes the ubiquitous format, then those neat
<- features can start to be used in those good schemas. That's a bit of an
<- idealistic dream, but You Never Know.
<- > Danny Ayers
<- Alaric B. Snell
<- http://www.alaric-snell.com/ http://RFC.net/
Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software