RE: "Binary XML" proposals

[Miles Sabin <MSabin@interx.com>]

Len Bullard wrote,
> SGML wasn't used for protocols, so maybe this is a new wrinkle, 
> but I suggest it is more related to archival so in that sense, > the same
advantages:  recoverability and reusability. 

Granted, but archival isn't the primary purpose of a protocol
payload. Archival _might_ be desirable for a protocol payload,
in which case I agree, Text is Good (it allows you to tail -f a 
nameserver query log, for example). We've got two different roles 
here, and it doesn't seem unreasonable for that to entail two 
different views.

Supporting an XML text based archival view of protocol messages 
would be a lot easier if protocol designers could help themselves 
to a useable binary XML encoding.

> Ever since the SGML binary discussions (circa 93?), this idea 
> comes up at least biannually.  It is like aliens: if they are 
> here, where are they?

  ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3072.txt

Cheers,


Miles

-- 
Miles Sabin                               InterX
Internet Systems Architect                5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)20 8817 4030                       London, W6 0LJ, England
msabin@interx.com                         http://www.interx.com/