[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
tpassin@comcast.net wrote:
>>You're missing the point, the operative word being "universality". An
>>XML parser can successfully read anything produced based on an XML
>>schema language (not to mention all that can be done without any schema)
>>-- unless that schema language is ASN.1 (which could be an argument for
>>saying it isn't exactly an XML schema language).
>
> I read this part of the thread differently. The point, I think, was that
> there would be a default encoding, and others could be used by negotiation.
> A parser would only have to be able to decode the default, and that would be
> used if negotiation disclosed that either side could only do the default.
>
> So if the default were xml, we would get full interop the same as we do now.
> No need for a parser to have to decode all those other encodings.
How does this work (amongst other cases) when:
- you can't negotiate
- XML is not an option
I'm not saying it's unsolvable, I'm saying the solution is more complex
than that. And that the trade-offs involved in adding a second universal
format with a W3C imprimatur are hard to evaluate.
--
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Scientist, Expway http://expway.com/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
