Re: "Binary XML" proposals

["Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net>]

"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.
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> Clark
> 
> 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
in protocols.
 

sdw
-- 
sdw@lig.net  http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams
43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 
Dec2000