[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Binary XML" proposals
- From: Miles Sabin <MSabin@interx.com>
- To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:51:51 +0100
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
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?
Miles Sabin InterX
Internet Systems Architect 5/6 Glenthorne Mews
+44 (0)20 8817 4030 London, W6 0LJ, England