[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Binary XML" proposals
- From: "Stephen D. Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Clark C. Evans" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 15:36:32 -0400
"Clark C. Evans" wrote:
> Good luck. But if you are "extending XML" don't call it XML, or
> even "binary XML". That would be bad.
The only extensions I plan to suggest are layered on top of XML, just
like all good XML compatible projects. In particular, I need efficient
and fine grained 'pointers' and delta overlay trees.
> It is interesting that your project is the antithesis
> of SML-DEV, where we *love* the textual XML format
> but just think that the structure is a bit too complicated.
> P.S. I agree wholeheartedly with Tim Bray and Sean
> McGrath's posts. Binary XML is dead on arrival.
> Getting away from binary formats is the _entire_
> reason for XML. Being able to audit your
> inputs and outputs.
One reason I sometimes refer to Binary Structured XML (bsXML ;-)) as
'compressed' is to allude to the analogy of being able to 'uncompress'
the stream to examine in in text. This is completely similar to using
gzip or bzip2.
Note that initially and primarily, I am still going for a self-described
format that is completely equivalent to XML 1.0. This is different from
WML and comparisons to ASN.1 where some information is implied. I have
however been considering a 'compression' level that includes a standard
way to do versioned dictionary compression which makes sense for XML use
Stephen D. Williams
43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax