Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Thursday 27 February 2003 13:11, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> It strikes me that a lot of people are using BinXML to mean whatever
> they want it to mean. For instance, I've been assuming up till now
> that it is no more strongly typed than XML 1.0. You seem to be
> assuming something different. I think talking intelligently about
> this might require an actual spec and software so it's clear what we
> are talking about.
BinXML is a product of the company Robin works for, isn't it?
> Also, I tend to think that if BinXML builds in strong typing of the
> sort you propose, it's even less like real XML than I thought.
No, no, relax; in the scheme I suggested, it uses the type information as
*advisory* data on how to encode stuff. It could ignore it all and just put
everything in as strings. This is what people refer to as a "Schema-aware
There are many possible encoding schemes for the kinds of trees XML encodes,
with different pros and cons. One of them is documented by the W3C. Another
is documented by the ISO and ITU. Another is a (proprietary?) product of a
company. Another is in MPEG but IIRC is encumbered by some patent somewhere.
And they are all useful for different situations.
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit