[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:25:19 -0800, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:
> What really scares me is the recurring theme that we ought to re- frame
> XML as a data model and treat the syntax as just one serialization. That
> makes me seriously paranoid - if somebody promises me XML, I want a
> stream of unicode characters with angle-brackets, not some fragile opaque
> binary kludge which is advertised as having infoset semantics -Tim
Consider Noah Mendelsohn's draft reply to the XML Core WG or the TAG or
Paul Grosso (I forget which)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Dec/0003.html
especially
"Note that, because SOAP is Infoset based, in a situation where two nodes
share a memory (run on the same processor or tightly coupled MP), it is
perfectly sensible to build a binding that does its work by just passing
around DOMs, SAX streams, or other in-memory representations of the
Infoset. In these cases, no serialization or parsing need ever be done.
Also: implementations can in principle use compressed or encrypted forms,
possibly by compressing or encrypting the <...> serialization, but also
possibly by using other compressed or encrypted representations. In
principle bindings could be written to send parts of the Infoset out of
order, in parallel over multiple links to improve bandwidth on large
messages, etc."
You don't REALLY want two processes on the same machine to pass around
angle bracketed Unicode text rather than DOMs or
SAX event streams do you? Or do you just object to calling
it "XML"?
Sigh, I'm paranoid about types but have learned to stop worrying and
love the Infoset. XQuery doesn't worry you, but binary infosets do.
And Simon is paranoid of both :-)
|
