Lists Home |
Date Index |
Tim Bray wrote:
> Hmm, I gather that people out there are already cooking up binary
> interchange formats that meet their needs. Robin claims that there's a
> strong existing candidate for a standard in this area in BiM.
Yes, but let me qualify this. I find BiM to be a very architecturally sound
foundation for such a format, but it can be improved upon, it's a v1. The set of
requirements it was created to answer was rather severe and included (amongst
other things that may be of less interest to this forum) resilience to change
I honestly think that it is not too much work to take the current BiM
specification and turn it into something that can satisfy the needs of a great
variety of domains, in fact the current state in which it is is much more
advanced than the MPEG-7 standard will reveal.
> This is
> all well and good, and for any imaginable such format it's probably
> going to be pretty easy to work out a canonical mapping to XML for
> people who need it.
It's so easy as to be almost obvious. The BiM binary infoset is read with SAX or
with the DOM, restituting the original XML vocabulary pretty much easily.
> If there is enough basis of experience for a standard in this area,
> somebody has to invest the work to write it down and move it through the
> process. What we can't afford is to let someone stick a label on the
> side of such a project that says "XML". XML is, and should remain, a
> very specific promise about making available bits on the wire in a
> single highly-constrained textual syntax. -Tim
Agreed, agreed, and agreed.
Robin Berjon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488