Re: More binary XML

["Anders W. Tell" <opensource@toolsmiths.se>]

Ive used 1,2,4 lengths, it is neccessary otherwise the size may skyrocket.

/anders

Al Snell wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Stefan Zier wrote:
>
> > A generic binary format would take away the pain of creating specialized
> > binary representations for different applications - WBXML is actually almost
> > generic. I think the critical question here is: Can we come up with a
> > one-size-fits-all solution that fits most relevant applications well enough
> > to be useful?
>
> That's the spirit :-)
>
> I'm aiming for something quite simple to describe, since I feel that will
> appeal to the kinds of markets XML appears in.
>
> Dilemma:
>
> Do I use 32 bit lengths for everything, meaning that no CDATA or element
> name or attribute name or namespace URI or PI body or target can be more
> than 4Gb in length? (Don't laugh, it may be an issue). Or do I encode the
> length scale in the top two bits of each byte-long tag, so we can use 8
> bit lengths for most stuff, 16 bit lengths for large spans of unbroken
> CDATA text, and 32 bit lengths for embedded images and pathological
> cases? This would be a slight increase in complexity, but it'd be more
> compact in the common case of strings being quite short.
>
> ...those are the kinds of issues I'm mainly worried about.
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org, an initiative of OASIS
> <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: xml-dev-request@lists.xml.org