Re: "Binary XML" proposals

[Al Snell <alaric@alaric-snell.com>]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, W. E. Perry wrote:

[...]
> expected form of data. Through internetworking those nodes may be able for the
> first time to exchange data, but the expected form or 'meaning'--let alone the
> proper uses--of that data may have nothing in common between the two. When that
> data is exchanged as XML text, with the fundamental expectation that it will be
> parsed afresh and then processed at each node in an environment and for purposes
> which are unique to that node, it is possible for the first time to execute
> distributed processing between utterly dissimilar parties.

But the binary format should be semantically identical to the text one, so
it's just a matter of different code to handle it - there's no change in
the fundamental communication of information, just it's a neater and more
lightweight mechanism.

> That new and unique benefit of the XML intellectual commons is the
> first thing lost to any canonical, let alone binary, representation of
> meaning.

I didn't say it would be canonical, either - the conclusion that namespace
prefixes have to be preserved alone precludes that :-)

But I disagree with what I think your general thrust is. A canonical
encoding of XML shouldn't be a bad thing, surely? The XML spec states that
whitespace in certain places and all that are irrelevant. Do you think
this is unwise of them?

> Walter Perry

ABS

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software